log in or register to remove this ad

 

Warlord: STR-primary, not so much...

This is not forked from the closed Warlord thread, honest.

All classes have a primary stat (or two) that are used to determine whether thier powers hit. For most classes, nothing else is quite as important as getting that stat as high as is pheasible (only the increasing costs of 17s & 18s gets in the way).

The warlord might be an exception to that. The warlord gains substantial benefits from his build's secondary stat (via Commanding Presence and the occassional utility power), while most other classes benefit from secondary stats mainly when thier powers hit. The warlord also has some powers, including at-wills, that have desireable effects on a miss (like Wolf Pack Tactics) and even an at-will that doesn't require him to make an attack roll /at all/.

Given that, a warlord could skimp on STR. You could even have a warlord build around something like Hammer Rythm, who concentrated almost exclusively on powers that have good effects (other than damage) on a miss, and concentrate on his secondary stat & CON (1/2 elf inspiring warlord, for instance), doing as much or more damage on a miss as a hit. It'd be out there, but it might work. He could even multiclass to swap out levels where there are no powers that fit the bill for another classes power that uses his higher secondary stat to hit or is reliable.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hawkeye

First Post
I play a tactical warlord and his primary stat is Intelligence, followed by strength and then con. I haven't had a combat yet where my attacks have missed by only a single point.

Hawkeye
 

xazil

Explorer
I have a gnome warlord who is built like that and performs quite well despite having STR as a tertiary ability. On the other hand although in the main campaign I DM the warlord definately feels he has to hit to contribute his own in combat as none of the other characters have a decent basic melee attack.
 


Wik

First Post
This is silly. A Warlord with high strength will 100% of the time be better than a warlord with low strength.

100%.


I dunno. I think if you put your points into int instead of str, you can make a pretty good warlord. And if you made str your tetriary ability (going int and cha), your warlord can still be pretty awesome.

Compare that to a fighter, for example, who made str his tertiary ability.
 

The Human Target

Adventurer
But you have to bear in mind that a lot of Warlord powers only do secondary things on a hit, which means that STR is still the most important stat for them as it determines their ability to get powers to activate.
 

cmbarona

First Post
Agreed. While there are a handful of powers that don't require the Warlord to hit (and therefore require STR), Hammer and Anvil is not one of them. I might be able to change my mind if someone posted a non-attacking Warlord build, but I just don't see it.
 

Hawkeye

First Post
This is silly. A Warlord with high strength will 100% of the time be better than a warlord with low strength.

100%.

I'll have to disagree here with you. The difference in the bonus granted by my warlord's intelligence vs his strength is 1. Again, I haven't had a combat situation where I have missed because of that one point. However, when using something like Lead the Attack, my allies have benefited from the extra +1 that the intelligence bonus gave them (+4 total currently.)

Hawkeye
 

cmbarona

First Post
Then in your case your Warlord does have high strength. Not as high as intelligence, but still high. The point being made is that strength is not and cannot be a dump stat for Warlords*, unless you forego many of the powers at their disposal. Hammer and Anvil, for example, requires Warlords to hit before granting a Melee Basic Attack. If you miss, no MBA. Show me a build through 30 where the Warlord only grants attacks, and I might change my position. Until then, I still think strength is important.

*For the sake of clarity, "dump stat" refers to a strength of 8, 10, or 12. 14 is debateable in my book.
 

Hawkeye

First Post
Yes, but the argument isn't that the Warlord can use Strength as a "dump" stat, but that they can give what the rules consider their secondary or tertiary stats higher consideration over strength. That's what I have done What you are talking about is someone playing a rogue with an 8 as an example. Not quite the same thing. I agree with you, that a Warlord with an 8 strength is at a severe disadvantage. A warlord with a 16 strength isn't 100% than one with a 14 strength.

Hawkeye
 

keterys

First Post
Having witnessed four warlords now, the one with the 14 Str is _woeful_ compared to the others.

Over the course of a campaign, that 1 will come up often, fwiw.

Also, the best solution is to have 18s in both (Genasi TacLord, Dragonborn InspLord, etc), clearly.
 


Obryn

Hero
I play a tactical warlord and his primary stat is Intelligence, followed by strength and then con. I haven't had a combat yet where my attacks have missed by only a single point.

Hawkeye
As a DM, I've seen a single point make a difference quite a few times. Several times per session, if we have a lot of combat.

I agree that it won't make a difference for a single character all the time. But all things considered, if I were running a warlord, I'd want that extra 5% chance to land my Dailies.

With that said, I think a warlord with 16 strength and a higher intelligence/charisma is a perfectly viable character. I'd hesitate at 14 strength, though. That's only 1 less than 16, but it's 2 less than 18 - which is where I'd really prefer it to be.

-O
 

Mengu

First Post
I'll chime in for the 18 strength warlord. I'm playing an inspiring dragonborn warlord with 18 strength and 16 charisma. I can't imagine playing him with those stats reversed. I think 18's in both would also be good, but I like having a 14 Con (for the extra HP's on healing surges and future Combat Veteran) and 13 Dex (soon to be 14, and later 15 for scale specialization, evasion, and HBO). I even plan to spread out my stat increases, my strength will go up every opportunity, but my charisma will go up every other opportunity.

Unlike certain other classes, I think the inspiring warlord can actually get away with a lower than maxed out charisma. One less charisma typically just means 1 less temporary hit point, or 1 less damage, not a huge deal. Hitting on the other hand is always important, especially for encounter powers.
 

Hawkeye

First Post
As a DM, I've seen a single point make a difference quite a few times. Several times per session, if we have a lot of combat.

I agree that it won't make a difference for a single character all the time. But all things considered, if I were running a warlord, I'd want that extra 5% chance to land my Dailies.
-O

That +1 isn't 5% all of the time, though. It can be higher or lower depending upon the AC of your target.

Hawkeye
 

Nail

First Post
Given that, a warlord could skimp on STR.

"Could"

Hmmmm. Sure, I suppose. But lots of powers are pretty gimped when you miss. Hitting is better. Really.

For example, my taclord has inspiring strike. Sure, if I miss my ally still gets to make a save......but I'd far rather damage the opponent and allow an extra save.

In the PH, all 1st level encounter powers do NOTHING on a miss. It gets better at level3, but still.....

Hitting is better. Don't skimp on your Str.
 

Caliban

Rules Monkey
Agreed. While there are a handful of powers that don't require the Warlord to hit (and therefore require STR), Hammer and Anvil is not one of them. I might be able to change my mind if someone posted a non-attacking Warlord build, but I just don't see it.

The original post is referring to the Hammer Rhythm paragon feat, which let's you do damage equal to your Con modifier if you miss an attack using a hammer. Not the warlord encounter power "Hammer and Anvil"

I think you could do a low strength build, but it would take some patience and a lot of feats. Using options from Martial Power and the Forgotten realms book, you could do an Eladrin Warlord, Use Commander's Strike and possibly Opening Shove (to give you the option of shiftin an ally 4+ squares if it hits), take "Lead By Example" as your lvl 1 daily (if you miss, you grant two allies a basic attack), and multi-class into either Wizard, Swordmage, or Spellscarred to give you access to powers that use your Int rather than Str.

You can also take the Tactical Inspiration feat from martial Power that lets you add your Int modifier to the healing granted by Inspiring Word.
 
Last edited:


keterys

First Post
So you're agreeing that the 16 Strength Warlord is 100% better than the 14 Strength Warlord? that would mean that +1 comes up on every roll.

I never said that - and it's not a very sensical statement. Do I think that a 16 Str Warlord is almost always better than a 14 Str Warlord? Yes. Do I think that a 16 Str warlord is twice as effective? Eh, probably not.

So which is meant by the 100% better? Better in 100% of situations or double effect?
 

ThirdWizard

First Post
This conversation keep happening in the game I DM:

Warlord: Okay, I'm going to use X ability. You get to do Y effect!
Ally: Awesome!
Warlord: *rolls* Oh... oh... nevermind... I missed.
Ally: Awww... :(

Eventually we had to tell him to stop telling people the benefits of his powers until he had confirmed that it was going to hit. The above just happened too often. Even Miss entries on dailies aren't nearly as good as Hits. Lead the Attack? Yeah, great on a hit, but pretty meh on a miss. No point in getting people's hopes up.

And, that's with 18 Strength. I can't imagine playing with less. Strength is critical to the warlord. If you want to pull off your good stuff, you have to hit.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top