Community

Nov 11, 2009 -- 5:46PM, ADIDAS wrote:

Thanks, thats nice to know.  I don't think i'm gonna go into Party Synergies, because they're just so many to choose from.  Avengers and Warlords don't seem to be the greatest combo during the heroic tier though, where most of the Warlords buffs are attack bonuses, and the Avenger is the class that needs those the least.

I think you're wrong about that. Here's why.

First, only taclords are in the habit of granting large attack bonuses. Resourcelords, inspirelords, and bravelords are at least as likely to grant damage bonuses (adaptive stratagem, inspired belligerence, warlord's strike, war of attrition)--which avengers need and make excellent use of.

Second, with their oath of enmity, avengers have the strongest basic attack available to take advantage of commander's strike (which comes with a damage bonus), hammer and anvil, staggering spin, lambs to the slaughter, etc. The extra 20-30% likelihood to land makes a huge difference. Also, some avenger strategies (most notably the martyr retvenger strategy) pile up large, short duration damage bonuses that can be further exploited with commander's strike. If the retribution avenger has triggered his censure two or three times, there is no better commander's strike target--even if oath of enmity is not active.

Warlords--even taclords--and avengers work very well together.

Nov 12, 2009 -- 5:56PM, ADIDAS wrote:

Sorry, sometimes I forget I'm not just writing about Taclords (as they're my personal favorite)

I wonder why almost all guidebooks try to focus on entire classes instead of subclasses/builds.  Read any guide on warlords with the aim of making an X presence warlord and you will have to sift through blue and sky blue ratings for powers you will never take because they are meant for the Y and Z presences.

The power suite of a Tactical warlord is not likely to have much in common with an Inspiring warlord, nor the Feylock with the Infernalock, nor the Orb wizard with the Staff wizard.  Likewise the magic items and, to a slightly lesser extent, the feat choices.  So why mix them all together in the same guide?  Given how differently two builds of the same class can play out, even when they play as closely as a Cha-focused Bravura and Inspiring warlord, what makes people think they can evaluate all the builds of a class adequately within the same framework?

(This is rhetorical.  I too love Tactical warlords and always read warlord guides from that sole perspective.  I remember the first time I saw War of Attrition rated sky blue.  "How could it be sky blue?  No one has a charisma bonus worth mentioning.")

Nov 12, 2009 -- 7:50PM, ADIDAS wrote:

I do enjoy all of the Warlord Presences (ehh, maybe not Inspiring), but it is indeed true that most of my experience is with Tactical Warlords.  However, due to my fascination with the build, I have looked and compared them to the other presences and their power and ability selection, so I do have some understanding of them.  While not to the extent of the Tactical presence, I have indeed spent a fair amount of time studying the other presences. 
I've tried my best to grade the powers on an equal basis, and I note what presences a power works best or worst for.
In my own defense, I mention often in my guide the things I value in power and feat selection, and they just happen to be most of the things a standard Taclord can excel at.  I don't put much stock in positioning or granting CA (as I find it easy enough to get without wasting resources), and I'll always take a strong attack buff over a mild healing ability.  Even though Inspiring Warlords are the best natural healers among the presences, the fact that dead enemys deal no damage is still important, meaning that all presences should have (in my opinion) more buffing powers than healing. 
Sorry if I sound too defensive there, I just want to make myself clear.  In all seriousness, if you have found a mistake, discrepancy or something that you disagree with in my guide, please inform me of it, and I may be found to be mistaken.

The funny thing about this is that you seem to be taking the WotC designer line on what inspiring warlords do rather than looking at their best powers and seeing what happens if you take them all. At least through heroic tier, inspiring warlords are, hands down, the best warlords at the whole "dead enemies do no damage" thing. A warlord who has hammer and anvil, warlord's strike, war of attrition, inspired belligerence, instant planning, and a vanguard weapon enables whole party novas in a way that taclords only wish they could do. (Tack on lamb before wolves, staggering spin, and warlord's resurgence (why don't you use rain of blows/storm of blades/claws of the griffon again and I'll use war of attrition again afterwards) if you want to include daily attacks). With all of the damage-boosting and attack boosting powers they get, it's actually somewhat hard to find space for healing or save-granting powers.

It's easy to see inspiring warlords as the healing warlords because of their presence bonus. But their good powers all point in a much more aggressive direction.