I've had the chance to see our party's Warlord in action over a handful of sessions now, and so far nothing has changed my original opinion of this new class.
In fact, it seems to have the same "flaws" that the 3.5 version of the Cleric had. In that the majority of the Warlord's rounds are spent bestowing things upon his fellow adventurers. The Cleric used to "waste" actions on healing (a "problem" fixed by healing surges) and now the Warlord "wastes" actions either moving other players, or giving them an extra attack.
Granted, an extra attack or move is always appreciated. But, do we really need a new class for this purpose? Just give powers to the individual classes to do it themselves, just like with Healing Surges.
Personally, I've never cared for playing a Cleric because of the burden of healing party members. I'll certainly never play a Warlord.
The thing that probably miffs me about this "class" is that I can't shake the feeling that they bumped the Sorcerer to make room for it in the PHB.
Bastards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This was emphasized this last game session, too. Our Warlord was unable to use any fancy powers to give an advantage to anyone -- the setup for all of his powers just wasn't there (no one adjacent to a foe, etc.) The Warlord had just a basic attack that he could make.
On the other hand, when the powers DO work out, they can be significant: Pin the Foe did a good job of keeping an enemy flanked, and the Commander's Strike can allow a specialist like the Rogue to get that extra sneak attack in.
I think the Warlord, out of any of the classes, requires the most strategy, both on the part of the Warlord's player AND the rest of the party, to best utilize the powers. The Rogue should try to make him- or herself available to the best use of the Commander's Strike and flanking should be a focus for the two biggest fighters so Wolf Pack Tactics is better utilized.
The Warlord is definitely similar to a 3.5 Cleric, being in the supportive role, so I think the trick is to ensure that that support is always advantageous - if the Warlord has to take his own basic melee attack, then that's something the party as a whole is doing wrong.
I think your first paragraph points out the specialty of the warlord. Tactics. It is mastery of tactical positioning, and working as a group that will bring out the awesomeness of the warlord.
We played a stint of lvl 19 chars... Setup as them being gladiators in an enchanted arena. I played a half-dragon charismatic warlord. He owned the day every time he granted people around him SWEET bonuses to healing and extra attacks.
What other class regularly grants their teammates extra attacks???
Nobody.
We had a fighter, ranger, and rogue along with the warlord. The fighter and ranger stayed ajacent to the warlord whenever possible, while the rogue nailed down foes on the outskirts. We killed an Elder Red Dragon, and without the warlord would have been CRUSHED.
A warlord alone is not nearly as potent as a fighter/paladin/clerics by themselves, put them with the right team (other members powers are important here too, they have to tie in with the warlord; if the ranger had been a mobility ranger it would not have worked well)and they rock. Plain and simple.
A friend of mine got the 4th edition set this past month and we have started playing on a regular basis. I myself play a Dragonborn Warlord, and it isn't as bad as you put it. If you are good at tactics and can think strats out then its a wonderful edition to a team. From what I've read on your opinion of the Warlord, it just sounds like your lazy and don't want to think about things. Your the type of person that seems to just want raw power.
Also, the warlord in most attacks it does will give some amount of damage on top of the bonus attack it gives to the other ally. So it may not be damage from the warlord itself, but your 7 damage from a str mod plus a bonus attack from an ally is more than just an attack from you. It isn't just a support character either if you play it right. You shouldn't talk the warlord down just because you don't know how to play the warlord correctly.
Thank you for your brilliant insight "Meh".
It's not that the Warlord sucks. Or that it serves no real purpose.
It's just that I don't know how to play.
Wow! It's so clear now that you've pointed it out to me.
Nevermind that healing surges were introduced to free up the Cleric class from casting cures every other round. Nevermind that they've plopped in another class that has the same issue they just "fixed".
Okay. Maybe you enjoy spending your turn giving someone else an extra attack of a free shift. That doesn't change my opinion that the Warlord is an empty class that exists solely to fill pages and give WotC an excuse for more page filler in future books.
Meh.
You obviously want to be the sole center of attention whenever it's your turn. Fair enough. That just means that Warlord isn't for you; I for one am anxious to try out my Warlord character when I start playing (instead of DMing) with my group.
A person that likes playing casters shouldn't bitch about fighters being in their PHB. Quit complaining about a class just because it doesn't fit your niche.
It's not about fitting my "niche", although the Warlock definitely does not fit my style. I can tell my buddies to move around to flank. I don't need a class to do that for me.
And that's my ultimate point. The Warlord, as a seperate class, is not necessary.
Roll those powers/feats/abilities/roles into the existing classes like the Paladin or Cleric or Fighter. Better fit. Less paper.
Now griff, I will grant you the opportunity to have your oppinion. You are entitled to it. I for one though am wanting to at least try it out at least for a couple of adventures before I write it off. You, Griff, gave no valueable feedback except the info that you think warlords suck... That being said, I have decided to continue with the warlord because of the other posts. Optimistics unite!
Post a Comment