Gnome Warlord

[Roberto]

Hey Guys. I'm starting a campaign soon where we have an avenger, rogue and me (warlord). I'm set on being a gnome but I'm finding my choice of weapon difficult due to gnomeness. Also on what feat to go with. We're only using phb1, 2, and 3 and I was wondering if anyone had any advice they could give me please?

[theNater]

You could kill two birds with one stone by using your feat on Weapon Proficiency with the Bastard Sword. Best damage you're going to get, and the higher proficiency bonus is nothing to sneeze at.

[Roberto]

Didn't think of that. So far I was getting weapon expertise (+1 to hit) with a handaxe and a shield. Because we're an all melee group I'm being mostly support for them.

Also, since there is only 3 of us and I think the campaign is for more (Keep of the shadowfell) I wanted to be more able to support and heal/buff so I thought shield might be better. Or should I just drop all that and smack em with my bastard sword?

[Mandrake]

Yah, I'd avoid that Bastard Sword because Rogue and Avenger are paper. Can you tell us what sort of Warlord are you going Intellect or Charisma, since you can do both with a Gnome?

Now, you can go two ways - mostly depending on your Strength check and how much you want to go Lazylordish (although that ain't easy without Martial Powers). Anyway, I suppose you will take Commander's Strike and make sure that your Striker with better positioning gets the attack, so your choice of weapon doesn't count for much, except for landing a sure strike with your Encounter and Daily (pick powers with less damage and more usefulness). Basically, I'd do it like this: (1) if you can afford high Strength and good positioning (depending on your team) which allows you better bonuses to Attack role go for Scimitar, most damage you can do without taking any feats, which you need, if not, then (2) go for a Short Sword, +1 to attack is great if your Strength is low and you are scared of missing with important attacks. Or, if you're a mother_of_god strategist, you can somehow switch between the two in important situations.
As far as feats go, depends on your choice of style (see top of the comment). Also, I hope your DM will adjust adventure challenge to fit your party, since you got to defender and got no controller.

Hope this helped, cheers!

[theNater]

For a gnome, I'd go with the bigger sword. If you make your Stealth check at the start of the fight and use your invisibility power in the middle, that's two rounds where a shield isn't going to be very helpful. With two strikers, your fights should be fairly short(if the DM is scaling the encounters down at all). With you handing out extra attacks, it seems like making fights as short as possible will be your best strategy.

Given that it's just the three of you, I'd actually start with a long sword and use the level one feat for Skill Training in Stealth. Your teammates both have Stealth as a class skill, so if you can sneak as well, the three of you should be able to do some ambushing. Light shields don't penalize your stealth at all, so if you like the shield better, shield and hand axe or shield and short sword would work just fine.

[Roberto]

I went for tactical over inspirational.
Think I have 16 str and 16 int but I could change that to 18 int and 14 str if I wanted. Stat array was 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10.
I've gone for commanders strike, bastion of defence (+to defences and temp hp for allies) and warlords favour (1 ally gets 1+int to hit for a turn).

I think I will swap int and str so that I can use commander's strike more effectively since i'm guessing that a rogue/avenger will hit for more than me. Especially since they'll have 18 on their attack stat most likely.

[Mandrake]

In my opinion, going for a bigger weapon is a bad idea. Compare a Longsword and a Short Sword - the difference is that, on average, he will deal 1 point less damage. ONE. In exchange for at least +1 to AC and +1 to Reflex with a shield, or even more. He won't be attacking, he'll be commanding. I'd even consider going all out high Intellect for Commander's Strike and keep Strength secondary, pick a Short sword for better accuracy and pick when to attack carefully to make use of that one or two attacks per encounter which are rolled by him. Furthermore, he needs ways to heal his friends, since healing surges aren't the best quality of a Rogue, and HP either, which means using feats. Max your support, healing and defenses, and let the Rogue worry about damage, since your attack for average dice (without bonuses) of 3.5 or 4.5 damage is unimportant anyway, and as soon as you get some level, basic dice is even less important compared to bonuses.

[Roberto]

I do like the sound of just commanding them everyturn. Think I will go for 18 int and less str. Feat wise should I go to +1 to hit or something like toughness or another survivability feat?

[erikun]

I would suggest a weapon with the highest proficiency bonus. You're more focused on hitting things with your powers than in dealing out damage; that extra point or two may be okay, but missing with Lead the Attack is just going to suck.

I would recommend short sword/shield or rapier/shield. The rapier has the advantage of dealing more damage, but at the expense of a feat. I'd also say that, if you're focusing on tactical warlord, to arm yourself with hide armor. Gnomes move slowly enough, and your superior INT means good AC even in light armor.

For your ability scores, I would recommend 16 STR/16 INT. Yes, it means you are giving one less point of bonuses towards Tactical Presence and Commander's Strike, but it also means one more point towards hitting with anything else you'd want to use. That, and with a rogue and avenger, you probably won't get much use out of Commander's Strike. 18 STR/14 INT wouldn't be recommended if you're using hide armor. 14 STR/18 INT I suppose could work, although you'll definitely want to focus on maximizing your attack bonuses; I generally do not recommend dropping below 16 in a primary stat.

For feats, Tactical Assault and Weapon Expertise are probably your best starting options, assuming you aren't spending it on rapier proficiency.

[allonym]

I would recommend short sword/shield or rapier/shield. The rapier has the advantage of dealing more damage, but at the expense of a feat.

I believe that Warlords have proficiency in rapiers as standard.

With regards to the OP, unless you're making a lazylord (A warlord who uses powers which do not require you to make attack rolls) I would recommend as high a strength as you feel you can afford. Gnome isn't well-suited to the Warlord class but I assume you know and accept that - it's not that big a deal, but unless you concentrate pretty strongly on your strength you're going to miss far too often. I would strongly consider 18 strength, 14 int, 11 whatever (probably cha) pre-racials. Otherwise, under no circumstances start with less than 16. Light blades like the rapier have a lot of potential for accuracy improvement, having a +3 proficiency to start with, the Nimble Blade feat for an extra +1 to hit from combat advantage, and Deft Blade at paragon tier for MBAs targetting reflex, if you should decide not to completely emphasise strength but are still rolling to hit.

[theNater]

I went for tactical over inspirational.
Think I have 16 str and 16 int but I could change that to 18 int and 14 str if I wanted. Stat array was 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10.
I've gone for commanders strike, bastion of defence (+to defences and temp hp for allies) and warlords favour (1 ally gets 1+int to hit for a turn).

I think I will swap int and str so that I can use commander's strike more effectively since i'm guessing that a rogue/avenger will hit for more than me. Especially since they'll have 18 on their attack stat most likely.
They will certainly hit for far more than you do. As such, I'd recommend that you consider switching Warlord's Favor for Hammer and Anvil, as Rogues and Avengers are generally pretty accurate(and therefore might benefit more from an extra attack than more attack bonuses).

Note that whatever encounter power you use, it doesn't do anything if you miss. So your accuracy is important enough for that 16 str to be good, even if you only use it once or twice per fight.

In my opinion, going for a bigger weapon is a bad idea. Compare a Longsword and a Short Sword - the difference is that, on average, he will deal 1 point less damage. ONE. In exchange for at least +1 to AC and +1 to Reflex with a shield, or even more. He won't be attacking, he'll be commanding.
Yeah, fair enough. The difference between the Short Sword and the Bastard Sword is more significant, but if he's going to feat up he can feat up to the Rapier/Shield combo.

Furthermore, he needs ways to heal his friends, since healing surges aren't the best quality of a Rogue, and HP either, which means using feats. Max your support, healing and defenses, and let the Rogue worry about damage, since your attack for average dice (without bonuses) of 3.5 or 4.5 damage is unimportant anyway, and as soon as you get some level, basic dice is even less important compared to bonuses.
Warlords don't get a lot of healing feats in heroic tier. I'm going to stand by my recommendation for Skill Training at level one, unless one of the others is untrained in Stealth.

[Tegu8788]

Depending on what the other races are, and how flexible your DM is, the possibilities for a Lazylord riding another PC, and telling him to hit the bad guy again, could be wonderful RP. Otherwise, some Str is definately needed. Just make sure the other two have strong MBA powers.

[Dimers]

Warlords don't get a lot of healing feats in heroic tier. I'm going to stand by my recommendation for Skill Training at level one, unless one of the others is untrained in Stealth.

Ugh. Skill Training? I respect your post, theNater, and the idea of an all-ambush party is a strong one, but surely there's some multiclass feat he could take to get Stealth instead ...

[allonym]

Without wishing to seem dismissive, skill training is a terrible use for a feat, especially in a skill whose statistic he won't be emphasising, and one which other members of the party can do so much better. If the party was themed around stealth and skulduggery then it would perhaps be an interesting gimmick, but then I would recommend taking a multiclass feat. Unless the DM is encouraging stealth, it simply won't be reliable enough, or usable in enough situations, to be a workable combat strategy. The high-initiative rogue positioning himself for an ambush is one thing, but the low-initiative leader following suit is impractical, synergy with the Gnomish racial power notwithstanding.

The problem is that, without access to martial power, where the better Warlord feats are, or Essentials, which has some of the most obvious essential feats in it, selection is necessarily limited. Tactical Assault is the most obvious choice, to echo Erikun, or Weapon Expertise, Or Shield Proficiency: Heavy (because your allies are going to be pretty squishy), or Inspired Recovery if you are going to be facing lots of (save ends) conditions.

To expand upon Tegu8788's point, the viability of concentrating on granting your allies melee basic attacks depends on their builds. If the rogue is a Brutal Scoundrel rogue, for instance, he will emphasise Strength alongside Dexterity, so his MBA will be very servicable, especially if you help him use sneak attack more often. If he instead emphasises Charisma, his accuracy will be incredibly poor. Likewise, your Avenger is likely to have a pretty inaccurate Melee Basic Attack, unless you are using Divine Power and he takes the Power of Skill feat, which doesn't seem to be the case.
In both cases this can be meliorated by your allies taking the Melee Training feat, which enables them to use the stat of their choice for their melee basic attacks, but causes those MBAs to deal less damage, but this is hardly an ideal solution, especially to take up their level 1 feats.

[Dimers]

In both cases this can be ameliorated by your allies taking the Melee Training feat, which enables them to use the stat of their choice for their melee basic attacks, but causes those MBAs to deal less damage, but this is hardly an ideal solution, especially to take up their level 1 feats.

I dunno, if I were a rogue or avenger playing in a 3-person party with a warlord, Melee Training might well be my first feat pick. The rogue especially could get a huge damage output benefit from that, expecting to make plenty of off-turn attacks.

[allonym]

I dunno, if I were a rogue or avenger playing in a 3-person party with a warlord, Melee Training might well be my first feat pick. The rogue especially could get a huge damage output benefit from that, expecting to make plenty of off-turn attacks.

Oh, definately, if I were in that situation and my warlord was set on being a lazylord, I would take it, though as the rogue I'd probably prefer to go brutal scoundrel. My point is rather that having to put off starting one's build to take a pretty dull feat in order that another party member can make their trick work can feel a little unsatisfying.

[Mandrake]

They will certainly hit for far more than you do. As such, I'd recommend that you consider switching Warlord's Favor for Hammer and Anvil, as Rogues and Avengers are generally pretty accurate(and therefore might benefit more from an extra attack than more attack bonuses).

Might be a bit of digression and not the central topic, but I just wanted to vote against Hammer and Anvil, though it crossed my mind at first as well, for the following reasons:
1 It's pretty much the same as Commander's Strike - you just get to strike Reflex for a practical MBA as well, so one extra attack for you once during an encounter, not too good.
2 It's already been discussed that MBA might be an issue with Avenger and Rogue due to their primary stats which do not emphasize MBA's. So granting an MBA which may not be on it's optimal side as an Encounter Power could be inefficient.
3 Simply put, I don't want for my Rogue to miss his gut-slashing Encounter or Daily. Warlord's Favor (for example), if used with Combat Advantage, for example, and an accurate weapon (even a low damage weapon), can deal some damage, and grant a near-certain hit, which is a lot more useful than another MBA that the Striker might miss.

Now as far as feats and weapon go, Nimble Blade and blade-enhancing feats are a no-go, in my opinion, since our brave little Warlord just won't have the Dexterity for it. Tactical Assault is great, again for that striker nova round. Heavy Shield Proficiency is a good idea as well, and I'd even consider Toughness or Durable, although Toughness influences surge value as well, by one point at least. (I also agree on taking Hide, at least until some magic armor starts to appear, then he can see what suits him better at the time.) If you're low OP, then Fey Trickster is always fun, I love those Cantrips, although this is just... flamboyance. Weapon Expertise is a no-brainer. Finally, Multiclass Feat and Skill Power can prove to be useful, if picked properly, indubitably. Other feats, in my opinion, are currently of secondary importance.

[theNater]

Ugh. Skill Training? I respect your post, theNater, and the idea of an all-ambush party is a strong one, but surely there's some multiclass feat he could take to get Stealth instead ...
Point well made. Ranger and Monk multiclass both work fine, providing a small free damage bonus. It does seem that either would work with Commander's Strike, also, which is hilarious.:smallbiggrin:

[theNater]

Might be a bit of digression and not the central topic, but I just wanted to vote against Hammer and Anvil, though it crossed my mind at first as well, for the following reasons:
1 It's pretty much the same as Commander's Strike - you just get to strike Reflex for a practical MBA as well, so one extra attack for you once during an encounter, not too good.
2 It's already been discussed that MBA might be an issue with Avenger and Rogue due to their primary stats which do not emphasize MBA's. So granting an MBA which may not be on it's optimal side as an Encounter Power could be inefficient.
Fair enough. I sometimes forget that Melee Training isn't automatic, as it has been fairly popular at the tables I frequent.

[Roberto]

I went for 16 str and 16 int with shield and handaxe (spare handaxe incase I lost my original from throwing it) with +1 to hit with axes.

We had to flee from Irontooth and almost died :S

[Mandrake]

Don't mistake my question for disapproval, but

why a Handaxe? Is it so that you can use it as a Ranged Basic Attack weapon, for RPG reasons, or personal preference? I'm asking because strictly mechanically speaking, a short sword offers a better chance to hit.

[Roberto]

Partly personal preference. I've never liked swords that much.
Partly the below picture.


http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff455/Jack_McQuiggin/gnome-armour.jpg

[Mandrake]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Approved. :smallbiggrin:

[Akodo Makama]

I went for 16 str and 16 int with shield and handaxe (spare handaxe incase I lost my original from throwing it) with +1 to hit with axes.

We had to flee from Irontooth and almost died :S

General rule of thumb is to have either a 16 main stat and a sword, or an 18 with other weapons, just to avoid the double drop in to-hit. But, of course, rule of cool trumps rule of thumb.

Also, the Irontooth encounter is notorious for eating parties alive. It's a toughie.

[VeliciaL]

Yeah, Irontooth is notorious for making or breaking a party. I wouldn't feel bad for barely surviving it.

[Roberto]

Cheers.
We got irontooth bloodied but there was just too many kobolds starting to surround us. Wyrmpriest, 2 dragonshields and I think 8 or so minions. Shame that we had no AoE...

We tried nuking Irontooth down. Is this the best approach or should we save him for last?