PDA

View Full Version : Paladin vs Warlord (Take 2)



t209
2011-03-14, 11:24 PM
Which one of these class is best for beginners?
Beneficial for the group?
Good for solo?
Suitable for what type of player (aggresive, strategic, defensive)?

Doc Roc
2011-03-14, 11:24 PM
Suggest you add the [4e] tag to this. You'll get more, and better, responses.

The Glyphstone
2011-03-14, 11:36 PM
Defender/leader versus a Leader/...striker?

Paladin is better for a defensive player, since it's a Defender primary. Warlord for a strategic player, since it's all about ally manipulation and boosting allies. either can be decent for an aggressive player, in their own way.

Though remember - barbarians kill enemies with their axe. Warlords kill enemies with their barbarian.

Akal Saris
2011-03-15, 12:13 AM
I say warlord. People will be more grateful to you for enabling them, and it will teach you the team-based mechanics of 4E.

Also, warlord seems more fun to me, though I don't have personal experience with either.

Dergmann
2011-03-15, 12:14 AM
Ive read through the material dozens of times, and bounced the concept around my skull at least as many. And all I can say is that I dont know what good a Warlord is. Given the choice, 5 players so far have picked Paladin. Warlord: nill.

MeeposFire
2011-03-15, 05:27 AM
Warlords are amazing. They can heal as that is their job but most importantly they are great at enabling your party to attack more, deal more damage, and be more accurate. For instance they can use the commander's strike to tell a comrade to attack a target and gives that ally a boost in damage. If you give that attack to your striker friend then you will be far ahead of the game.

Warlords are also interesting in that they are one of a few classes that can completely ignore their attack stat and make an effective character, these are called lazy warlords and they spend their actions making other classes attack.

Each warlord type gives you a different emphasis which means you can make many types of warlords. Tactical gives accuracy, inspiring are best at healing, resourceful are versatile, bravura are all about taking chances, skirmishers are about mobility, and insightful are for defense. On top of this you can choose to be melee, range or lazy based and can make a choice between buffing the parties init mod or boosting positioning early in a fight. No other class can boast so many different play styles in just one class.

Paladins are fine defenders and are among the best at marking many targets. In addition they make for good leader back up. They are a fine class but I find warlords to be much more interesting and powerful assuming you like to play leader type characters as if you prefer defending the paladin would be better.

Answers to you questions

1) Both can be difficult for beginners as warlords are very tactical in nature and paladins need effective mark placement to be effective especially all alone. Really it is more a question of play style. Do you prefer to play a class that boosts others or directly protects others? It is hard to screw up a warlord too badly (since even the bad powers tend to still be helpful, just less helpful than the best powers) but paladins have an easier job (mark targets and engage in melee) since they tend to have less choices in what is effective.

2) Depends on group composition (do you need a defender or leader). If all things are equal then I would say due to the sheer number of options it is hard for me to see a situation where a warlord would not be helpful (only thing I can see is if you had a party full of leaders already).

3) Paladins are tough enough to solo though they lose a lot of class features to do so (defender features are based around protecting allies so they tend to be useless outside of that). Warlords would also be good since they have the ability to heal themselves though they too tend to be sad about having no friends to help. Warlord would probably have more options but the paladin would be a tougher nut to crack.

4) Warlords and paladins tend to be aggressive in general. Paladins need to be in the thick of things so they can disrupt the enemy and warlords (with the exception of insightful) tend to be offensive minded so they tend to like attacking hard and fast. While both benefit from strong tactical and strategic choices the warlord is probably the most tactical minded class in the game.

Gillric
2011-03-15, 11:32 AM
Ive read through the material dozens of times, and bounced the concept around my skull at least as many. And all I can say is that I dont know what good a Warlord is. Given the choice, 5 players so far have picked Paladin. Warlord: nill.

Clearly you have never played with an efficient, well built warlord. Enabling a free attack for your scary striker? awesome. Healing your allies? nice. Buffing and some movement enabling? What is wrong with any of this?

Seerow
2011-03-15, 11:34 AM
Hybrid Class Paladin/Warlord.

Best of both worlds. I ran it once in a one shot where we only had two players and were trying to compensate for not being a full group.

Mark Hall
2011-03-15, 11:46 AM
Which one of these class is best for beginners?
Beneficial for the group?
Good for solo?
Suitable for what type of player (aggresive, strategic, defensive)?

I like both of them, personally, though the Warlord is a bit more "solid" a class, being "A" (i.e. 1 ability that all powers are based off of, with secondary effects based on two different abilities) shaped instead of "Y" shaped (two abilities on which powers are based, with other effects coming from a third). A lot of it comes down to player style and ability.

A paladin is, as mentioned, a tank who can heal a bit. He's the solid bulwark off which attacks roll, with some leadery aspects (powers that provide bonuses to allies, the lay-on-hands ability to fuel others with his healing surges).

A warlord is a chessmaster. Playing a warlord well, IME, requires a bit of collusion from the other players, AND a good tactical mind. I find warlords to be harder than Paladins, because you have to know more about what the party can do and how you can best influence that. However, they can, like all leaders, make a party more awesome, especially if well played.

I'd be more inclined to give a Paladin to a beginner, unless that person has significant RPG experience. Someone with the RPG experience is more likely to know the basics of effective tactics and be better able to intergrate others abilities into his plans. For a newbie, I prefer to give them a character that they can focus on, rather than make them responsible for others.

Bagelz
2011-03-15, 03:57 PM
Warlords are one of the harder classes to play well (not than anything in 4e is especially difficult).
Strikers are the easiest to play, because they are straightforward. your job is to attack stuff.

defenders (read the paladin) and controllers each have jobs to do, so it takes a tiny bit of thought. most of this is paying attention to the battlefield.

leaders (the warlord) need to pay attention to the party status, and most of the a warlord's powers grant your allies extra stuff, so they also need to pay attention to the battlefeild, and they have a lot of triggered powers. Its very possible to build a warlord who's only standard actions appear to be basic attacks because all of the powers are triggered.
A warlord may be the most influential player in a combat, but seem like he's not doing anything.
I'd suggest a cleric or runepriest over a warlord for brand new players. They are more straight forward.

also great post MeeposFire

MeeposFire
2011-03-15, 11:21 PM
Hybrid Class Paladin/Warlord.

Best of both worlds. I ran it once in a one shot where we only had two players and were trying to compensate for not being a full group.

That is a good combo especially with the recent update that made hybrid challenge no longer need an immediate action to punish your enemies. Use mighty challenge (or be a half orc and use their feat) and your mark will be fairly nasty.

And Bagelz thank you, you are too kind.

absolmorph
2011-03-18, 05:08 AM
My first time playing 4e was a paladin.
I've had absolutely no trouble understanding what I could do, what I should do and what the most effective powers to pick up were.
I look at the powers of a warlord and think "what would a good situation for using that be?" and struggle with it.
I've mostly taken over healing duties (when they're necessary) from the cleric, and enemies not attacking me gives them a nice, thorough smack in the face from my divine sanction.
As I told my DM in our first session of 4e, as I essentially forced myself to be the focus of the fight: "I'm a defender!"
And it's an easy role to learn.

Kurald Galain
2011-03-18, 05:35 AM
Which one of these class is best for beginners?
The paladin, hands down. Essentially, the pally only needs to know his own character to be effective, whereas the warlord also needs to know a lot about his allies.


Beneficial for the group?
The warlord, hands down. Taclords hand out to-hit bonuses like candy.


Good for solo?
Neither. The pally is a defender and is less effective if he doesn't have party members to defend; the warlord is a leader and is less effective if he doesn't have party members to lead.


Suitable for what type of player (aggresive, strategic, defensive)?
Aggressive players should play a striker. The warlord is clearly more strategic than the paladin, and the paladin is probably more defensive than the warlord.

Eorran
2011-03-18, 09:06 AM
Which one of these class is best for beginners?
Beneficial for the group?
Good for solo?
Suitable for what type of player (aggresive, strategic, defensive)?

My experience with Paladins is different than most of the rest. This might be because our groups regularly play with fewer PCs and higher stats (32-pt) than standard.

I found Paladins to be great for solo, with good defenses, some self-healing, and decent damage (using a 2-hander and grabbing the more aggressive powers). They haven't been hard to play from the moment we picked up 4e. An aggressive player can do all right with a Paladin, but might prefer a Barbarian.

Warlords, especially Tactical warlords, are still probably the best group-tactics managers. I love warlords, but they aren't great for the guy who loves yelling out how much damage he did last round, and they did take more time to figure out for a new player.

kyoryu
2011-03-18, 01:07 PM
Aggressive players should play a striker. The warlord is clearly more strategic than the paladin, and the paladin is probably more defensive than the warlord.

While this is generally true, a Straladin can come pretty close to being a secondary striker. Maybe not quite on par with a Fighter, but awfully close.

Drglenn
2011-03-18, 11:29 PM
Which one of these class is best for beginners?

Either, both are easy to pick up


Beneficial for the group?

Both help the party in different ways: 'din protects the squishies from harm, 'lord heals and gives bonuses to the other party members


Good for solo?

Both need at least one other party member to be fully effective, remember: 4e is based a lot around intra-party interactions


Suitable for what type of player (aggresive, strategic, defensive)?

Both can be any combination of the 3, Paladins tend to be strategic/defensive and warlords tend to be aggressive/strategic though

You may notice that my replys are really non-answers, this is because you've picked 2 different roles, paladin is defender, warlord is leader. If you want to compare classes better choose some from within the same role

Suedars
2011-03-18, 11:38 PM
If you're playing a Paladin I'd make sure you have access to Divine Power. With just the PHB they're significantly less effective and can have issues filling their role.

The1exile
2011-03-19, 07:00 AM
I love Warlords in 4e, especially taclords. It depends a little on what you mean by beginner though - new to 4e, or new to rpgs in general, or something else?

Paladins thrive on asking the GM if that guy just made an attack that didn't include him, while warlords can have great fun high fiving the guy who flanked with him from wolf pack tactics or attacked for him with commanders strike. I find Warlords combine striking and healing better, though (with strenght as a primary attribute and either int or cha as secondary), so they're arguably a more rounded (and possibly beginner friendly) option.

tcrudisi
2011-03-19, 07:11 AM
I'd just like to interject with one suggestion. If you (or that player) ends up going with the Warlord, it can be frustrating if you pick up Commander's Strike or Direct the Strike (I think I have the names correct. I'm going off memory). Especially at lower levels, the Warlord can find himself constantly giving up his attacks to let others attack.

Is it effective? Yes. Is it boring? For many players, yes. Why? Because they aren't getting to roll the dice. As such, I encourage Warlord players to collect the basic attack stats of each player at the table. Then, when they allow the Barbarian to make a basic attack, the Warlord can roll it for the Barbarian. It allows the Warlord to stay a bit more active in the game and feel like they are participating more.