Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Some of us have no shame.The internets shamed people out of playing Bards, so they made the Warlord.
Some of us have no shame.The internets shamed people out of playing Bards, so they made the Warlord.
The internets shamed people out of playing Bards, so they made the Warlord.
This post reads as if it could come from another timeline. Warlords were consistently a very popular class in my and multiple other groups - and it's one of those things you probably need to see in play.Dusting off my old 4E books and waxing nostalgic about the previous edition, I settled on reading the entry of the Warlord in the PHB. The class is often mentioned as a high point of 4E design, and many say they wish the class would've been ported over to 5E.
In actual play, I never saw a player take a Warlord. There were more psionic Ardents (I think that's the psychic leader). And why? It was in the first PHB, so it was around from the very beginning.
I'm looking over it now, and the powers seem incredibly situational and underwhelming. If you happen to be standing adjacent to a monster and an ally is also standing adjacent to the same monster, if you hit on an attack your ally can also make a basic attack (assuming they have a basic attack that's decent). Not to mention the dependence of needing multiple great ability scores (Strength to hit, Intelligence to give a bonus, Charisma to do something else, etc).
And this is the At-Will rock on which the church of Warlord is built? A class that only works in special circumstances with a very specific party (one based on basic attacks).
It seems one of the worst designed classes in that edition. Maybe it's fondly remembered because of bragging rights, overcoming the bad design to make a character who could contribute at just a few steps below every other Leader in the game?
A key word here is "allowed" - lazy'lords get all the press, but you could probably create a Warlord character who never granted attacks. I doubt many people would actually make a Warlord like that, but I'd guess most would chart a middle course. I know the Warlord player in my group did. I never played a Warlord myself, sadly, but I did play a Bard (who have some attack granting, although not to warlord level) and I can vouch for its being a lot of fun to be able to say "I hit them with my Barbarian" .The Warlord had, from 1st level, abilities that let them give up their mediocre Leader attack to grant a Striker a bonus attack, which was not only an upgrade in of itself, but also allowed for the "Lazy Warlord" build, that never actually attacked themselves, but lent attacks to their Striker allies.
Fherul [tiefling warlord] had to bust out her combination of reorient the axis (everyone shifts 9) plus a power that lets everyone attack as a minor action for one round – naturally all this was done while the party was already under the effects of “reroll all attacks and choose the higher result” and various buffs to attack and damage rolls. To top it off, Fherul rolled a crit on her own attack, which thanks to the Legendary Sovereign epic destiny set off a party-wide cycle of basic attacks. When the dust cleared, three enemies were dead, which drastically cut down the amount of damage the PCs took over the remainder of the fight.