Poll on which Warlord build to previewInsightful Warlord
You lead through careful observation and a knack for predicting your enemies’ actions. In combat, you keep your eyes open and quickly adapt your plan to changing circumstances. You show your allies how to identify enemy weaknesses and exploit those flaws. You are skilled at demoralizing foes and are an expert at interrupting their actions by issuing quick commands.Skirmishing Warlord
You scoff at the notion that war takes place on the front lines. Your talents are akin to the skills of archers, sneaks, and scouts. You recognize that their contributions are as vital as the efforts of melee combatants. You help allies by sharpening their timing, directing their maneuvers, and pointing out targets with your own ranged attacks.
This shows a Wis build and an Archery build.
It might be that one is a Str/Dex and the other is a Str/Wis build.
I'm excited for both.
I voted Skirmishing in the poll, though, as it seems to be the more unusual concept.
I'm largely neutral on these two, mostly because my love for the Tactical Warlord is such that I can't imagine me every playing a warlord of another type. I lurves it to death, I does.
I voted Skirmishing in the poll, though, as it seems to be the more unusual concept.
Same here. I want to see the Bow-lord.
If there is a Bowlord, do you think it will use dex for attack?
Seems likely, but I could also see them relying on Heavy Thrown weapons so as not to add more attribute requirements to the build (and thus not really being 'bowlords'). Then again, there's absolutely nothing that says you can't have a regular Strength-keyed ranged weapon attack power, so who knows?
If there is a Bowlord, do you think it will use dex for attack?
Seems likely, but I could also see them relying on Heavy Thrown weapons so as not to add more attribute requirements to the build (and thus not really being 'bowlords'). Then again, there's absolutely nothing that says you can't have a regular Strength-keyed ranged weapon attack power, so who knows?
Key word: archers.
I don't think it would say you're akin to archers if you were throwing heavy weapons. That's not archery. That's playing darts with pickaxes.
Key word: archers.
That's only the key word if you completely ignore context. Read it again: "Your talents are akin to the skills of archers, sneaks, and scouts. You recognize that their contributions are as vital as the efforts of melee combatants." You're not an archer. You just share some similar talents (and also share those talents with "sneaks and scouts"). Nothing there suggests a warlord who actually uses a bow, but rather a warlord who works well with a party that includes archers, rogues and other ranged sneaky types.
Also, the word "skirmisher" suggests (to me) a reliance on thrown weapons like javelins, rather than bows. A "skirmishing" style of combat means a close-ranged, mobile one with ambushes and feints, not standing a couple of hundred yards away and raining arrows down on the enemy.
The bard getting a bow-using build in AP was not a surprise, because bards were already proficient with longbows and shortbows in PHB2 (which had already led many people to predict a bow-using build eventually). The warlord is not proficient with those weapons as standard.
Personally, I'd love to see a Dex-using archery warlord build, but I do not think this skirmishing warlord is it. I would be very surprised to see a single-attack-stat class suddenly become a dual-attack-stat class like the ranger.
''C'mom, you guys in front! Attack! Attack! Not like that, stupid scumbags, work on your timing! Oh, dammit, must I do everything on my own? C'mon, gimme that sword, I'll show you how it's done...''
Key word: archers.
That's only the key word if you completely ignore context. Read it again: "Your talents are akin to the skills of archers, sneaks, and scouts. You recognize that their contributions are as vital as the efforts of melee combatants." You're not an archer. You just share some similar talents (and also share those talents with "sneaks and scouts"). Nothing there suggests a warlord who actually uses a bow, but rather a warlord who works well with a party that includes archers, rogues and other ranged sneaky types.
Also, the word "skirmisher" suggests (to me) a reliance on thrown weapons like javelins, rather than bows. A "skirmishing" style of combat means a close-ranged, mobile one with ambushes and feints, not standing a couple of hundred yards away and raining arrows down on the enemy.
The bard getting a bow-using build in AP was not a surprise, because bards were already proficient with longbows and shortbows in PHB2 (which had already led many people to predict a bow-using build eventually). The warlord is not proficient with those weapons as standard.
Personally, I'd love to see a Dex-using archery warlord build, but I do not think this skirmishing warlord is it. I would be very surprised to see a single-attack-stat class suddenly become a dual-attack-stat class like the ranger.
I know it says "akin to Archers," but throwing a Javelin is not a skill similar to that which Archers use. It may be similar in the rules of D&D, but thematically, throwing weapons work very differently from archery. It doesn't say your skills are akin to Archery. It says akin to Archers. That means that you could very well do Archery without being an archer.
That said, we already know that the Warlord's getting a bow-build, because of the preview that had a style that focused on it.
Both sound great, the intuitive warlord sounds more like a controller, which is amazing. The Bowlord sounds great, hopefully it'll be Int for attacks and str for secondary.
NO! If a martial class uses anything other than Str or Dex as a primary, it is NOT martial. Even Con is a little iffy IMO.
Now if only I could get an INT-Rogue too?...
Both sound great, the intuitive warlord sounds more like a controller, which is amazing. The Bowlord sounds great, hopefully it'll be Int for attacks and str for secondary.
NO! If a martial class uses anything other than Str or Dex as a primary, it is NOT martial. Even Con is a little iffy IMO.
Sure it is. If it says 'Power Source: Martial', then it's a martial class.
Both sound great, the intuitive warlord sounds more like a controller, which is amazing. The Bowlord sounds great, hopefully it'll be Int for attacks and str for secondary.
NO! If a martial class uses anything other than Str or Dex as a primary, it is NOT martial. Even Con is a little iffy IMO.
Sure it is. If it says 'Power Source: Martial', then it's a martial class.
No, because no Martial class would use anything other than Str or Dex as primary, because we're only getting these four Martial classes.
If we EVER in the future got a fifth Martial class (and you can bet it WON'T be a Controller), it won't have Con or Int or Wis or Cha as the primary attacking ability.
Both sound great, the intuitive warlord sounds more like a controller, which is amazing. The Bowlord sounds great, hopefully it'll be Int for attacks and str for secondary.
NO! If a martial class uses anything other than Str or Dex as a primary, it is NOT martial. Even Con is a little iffy IMO.
Sure it is. If it says 'Power Source: Martial', then it's a martial class.
No, because no Martial class would use anything other than Str or Dex as primary, because we're only getting these four Martial classes.
If we EVER in the future got a fifth Martial class (and you can bet it WON'T be a Controller), it won't have Con or Int or Wis or Cha as the primary attacking ability.
Got a crystal ball we don't? Maybe you don't think a martial class should have any primary stat other than STR or DEX, but that doesn't mean it will never happen.
Both sound great, the intuitive warlord sounds more like a controller, which is amazing. The Bowlord sounds great, hopefully it'll be Int for attacks and str for secondary.
NO! If a martial class uses anything other than Str or Dex as a primary, it is NOT martial. Even Con is a little iffy IMO.
Sure it is. If it says 'Power Source: Martial', then it's a martial class.
No, because no Martial class would use anything other than Str or Dex as primary, because we're only getting these four Martial classes.
If we EVER in the future got a fifth Martial class (and you can bet it WON'T be a Controller), it won't have Con or Int or Wis or Cha as the primary attacking ability.
Got a crystal ball we don't? Maybe you don't think a martial class should have any primary stat other than STR or DEX, but that doesn't mean it will never happen.
No, my Orb implement doesn't let me predict the future.
However, WotC said that for now… they weren't making any new Martial Classes.
The only class that could possibly have a new primary ability of the existing Martial Classes is the Ranger, which is a V-shaped class already. That would make it W-Shaped, by the way, while is unheard of thus far (and would further exacerbate the problems associated with V-Shaped classes). And I really don't see the Ranger getting a Con-based attack. I attack you with my endurance!!
And an implement Ranger doesn't sound likely either.
In fact, WotC made it pretty clear early on that while other power sources were using implements as well as weapons, Martial classes would stick to just weapons. It's why the Warlord lost it's Battle Standard implement during 4e Playtesting.
yes, they have said that ... 'for now'. They may come up with another Martial class idea, and that class might use Con, Int, Wis, or Cha for its primary stat. As you say, we cannot predict the future. And they may well change their mind on weapons-only if they think it's interesting enough to do so. Just because something is doesn't mean it will always be.
And they might allow PC Pod Demons in the future…
What I'm saying is that's very unlikely. WotC have defined key elements of what makes something Martial, and in a way, it's the most restricted Source, but it also has the most build concepts within each class to expand upon, so that's okay.
It would probably play similar like a tactical warlord, except it would be "ranged basic attack", and do more with manuvering. "when an ally spends an action point they can shift your Dex mod" would fit perfectly.
I see the attacks being Str based, but with Dex you can still use bow's for RBA's.
The wis one sound fun too, but i want to see the stealth one first.
Well to pull things back on topic, i think the skirmisher would be Str/Dex. If you're building a party of sneaks then you're going to need stealth yourself. We need a stealth based leader.
It would probably play similar like a tactical warlord, except it would be "ranged basic attack", and do more with manuvering. "when an ally spends an action point they can shift your Dex mod" would fit perfectly.
I see the attacks being Str based, but with Dex you can still use bow's for RBA's.
The wis one sound fun too, but i want to see the stealth one first.
They could get an at-will that functions as an RBA, possibly?
I'd probably make a hopilite (javalin + shield), but it would be nice if you could bows too.
Hrm. I think it's going to be Str primary, even if it's a ranged weapon thing. I hope they understand why A classes are better than V classes. Heavy thrown weapons. A Throwlord, not a Bowlord.
Str/Dex can adequately describe a Bowlord. Remember, powers don't NEED to be based off of Dex for bow attacks. It's only for Archer Ranger that they are, in fact.
I hope they understand why A classes are better than V classes.
Perhaps you could explain?
IMO neither one is better than the other all around, they both have their pros and cons and thus it's a matter of play style and preference.
I hope they understand why A classes are better than V classes.
Perhaps you could explain?
IMO neither one is better than the other all around, they both have their pros and cons and thus it's a matter of play style and preference.
I think he means because A classes are less restrictive in how stats are allocated if you don't want to disregard half the power choices in a V class.
Hrm. I think it's going to be Str primary, even if it's a ranged weapon thing. I hope they understand why A classes are better than V classes. Heavy thrown weapons. A Throwlord, not a Bowlord.
Str/Dex can adequately describe a Bowlord. Remember, powers don't NEED to be based off of Dex for bow attacks. It's only for Archer Ranger that they are, in fact.
Yeah - the Archer Bard still uses Cha, and the Archer Seeker still uses Wis.
I think he means because A classes are less restrictive in how stats are allocated if you don't want to disregard half the power choices in a V class.
I figured. It's a rather subjective complaint IMO.
I think he means because A classes are less restrictive in how stats are allocated if you don't want to disregard half the power choices in a V class.
I figured. It's a rather subjective complaint IMO.
I don't think so, having a warlock and not being able to use 1/3 of the warlock powers is kinda lame. It seems to me that WoTC is shying away from the V as well, as their harder to expand. W style would be a real pain.
I don't think so, having a warlock and not being able to use 1/3 of the warlock powers is kinda lame. It seems to me that WoTC is shying away from the V as well, as their harder to expand. W style would be a real pain.
I'm not saying it's an invalid complaint, It's just not one that everybody shares.
If I was more of a power player I might consider it more of an issue, but I focus more on role playing and I enjoy that V classes mesh better with multiclassing and twice as many races have the attack stat for em than A classes.
Neither is better that the other, they're just better for different kinds of players.
Here's how I think the ranged Warlord should work; they use Str as the atk stat, Int or Wis as the kick stat, they're flavored towards using heavy thrown weapons but without any mechanics that enforce the use of them, so you could use a bow if you get the Prof, and then just handwave the lack of dex involved. So it would be more of a Throwlord than a Bowlord but you could make it into a Bowlord if you really wanted it to be one.
I don't think so, having a warlock and not being able to use 1/3 of the warlock powers is kinda lame. It seems to me that WoTC is shying away from the V as well, as their harder to expand. W style would be a real pain.
I'm not saying it's an invalid complaint, It's just not one that everybody shares.
If I was more of a power player I might consider it more of an issue, but I focus more on role playing and I enjoy that V classes mesh better with multiclassing and twice as many races have the attack stat for em than A classes.
Neither is better that the other, they're just better for different kinds of players.
Here's how I think the ranged Warlord should work; they use Str as the atk stat, Int or Wis as the kick stat, they're flavored towards using heavy thrown weapons but without any mechanics that enforce the use of them, so you could use a bow if you get the Prof, and then just handwave the lack of dex involved. So it would be more of a Throwlord than a Bowlord but you could make it into a Bowlord if you really wanted it to be one.
But we know there's at least one Martial Style involving a Bowlord, which would be quite a bother if they feat-taxed you for that particular style (2 style feats + proficiency feat, rather than just 2 style feats).
The class has to get the Prof one way or another, either way you loose something for the use of Bows
Unless, y'know, it's included as part of the Class Feature for Skirmishing Warlords…