[D&D 4.0] Warlords?

[Gov2win]

Hey guys, I recently started reading up on 4.0 and Warlord really seems like a lot of fun. I don't have access to all the supplements as of yet, so I was wondering what everyone's opinions were as far as good Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies?

So far, I've taken a liking to the Captain of Fortune, it seems very versatile since its powers can be melee or ranged.

[Spamotron]

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22579049/Chasing_Glory:_The_Warlords_Handbook is a good start. Word of warning Warlords can be very powerful but require more party cooperation and good tactics than any other leader to achieve that power. Also without feat support from later books all the Warlord builds except Inspiring are a little weak at healing. Their paradigm is affecting movement and action economy to avoid getting hit in the first place. If your player group is inexperienced a simpler leader like a Wisdom Cleric might be better for you.

[Warlawk]

"I don't wield weapons, I wield fighters!"

Sorry... haven't been keeping up on 4E since shortly after release (my gaming group decided to stick with 3.5), but warlord was probably my favorite of the classes.

I did get a chance to play a banished eladrin tactical warlord wielding a greatspear for a bit though, was a good time.

[gurban]

Battle Lord of Kord. Pretty sweet. Played one for a few sessions during an in game dream sequence. Was a Dragonborn too, if that matters. Also, he took Superior Weapon Proficiency with War Axe and Whip, which made for a good combo, and gave me the ability to be in and out of the fight.

[tcrudisi]

Since the Warlord's handbook has already been posted (read the first 2 pages), I'll skip out on giving advise on that front.

However, here's one for playstyle:

When it comes to Direct the Strike and Commander's Strike, the two Warlord at-wills which allow an ally to make a basic attack instead of you, I find that the players of Warlords have more fun if they are the one to roll that attack. Basically, if you've got a Barbarian in your party, find out what his basic attack is (+14 to attack, 1d12+7 damage brutal 1) for instance. Then, when you allow him to make a basic attack, you roll for him. It keeps the Warlord more focused in the battle and allows him to do what oh so many people love to do in D&D - roll dice.

And the quote I remember was "Barbarians wield a Great Axe. Warlords wield a Barbarian."

[Katana_Geldar]

There's nothing so satisfying than having a tactical warlord team up with a melee striker. Good times. :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

I find that the players of Warlords have more fun if they are the one to roll that attack.

Personally I like the opposite. I made a lazylord character (i.e. a warlord that never does anything himself, having only powers that let his allies attack or move, and that has strength as his dump stat) and had a lot of fun with powers like "Mr. Rogue, Ms. Barbarian, and Sir Fighter - on my mark: CHAAARGE!!!"

[tcrudisi]

Personally I like the opposite. I made a lazylord character (i.e. a warlord that never does anything himself, having only powers that let his allies attack or move, and that has strength as his dump stat) and had a lot of fun with powers like "Mr. Rogue, Ms. Barbarian, and Sir Fighter - on my mark: CHAAARGE!!!"

Yes - but as a first character for someone? Most people enjoy rolling the dice. Of course there are exceptions. I just don't want the OP to think that he will never get to make an attack roll if he chooses the lazylord powers.