4E Class Survivor - Round 1

[Wik]

[*]Mechanically, it's a poor leader. I've played in a group with one for about half a dozen or so sessions now, and the number of times I've found myself thinking "I wish we had a warlord/bard/artificer - or even a cleric - right now"...
[/LIST]

See, this surprises me. My shaman has better healing than a bard, for sure. Not only do I get to heal you a surge (granted, this is a small amount of healing compared to other leaders), but I also get to heal a nearby ally additional hit points. In essence, I can spread the healing around the party with one minor action.

If you go protector shaman, you get to grant temporary hit points, have a lot of powers that grant additional healing to your allies. And as a striker shaman, I still take a few powers that grant saves or healing surges. Now, the shaman may not be a dedicated leader - it definitely dabbles in the other three roles - but it can certainly fill the shoes of party leader. I know my striker shaman is doing it, and I didn't really build him in that direction so much.

 

[Tallifer]

For my part, I do not understand why people dislike warlords. My absolutely relies on our tactical warlord to allow us to hit higher level monsters and soldiers. Missing sucks.

 

[gribble]

For my part, I do not understand why people dislike warlords. My absolutely relies on our tactical warlord to allow us to hit higher level monsters and soldiers. Missing sucks.

Warlords are great to have in your party... unless you're the one playing the warlord.

Ok, that's a bit tongue in cheek, and I do enjoy playing my MC taclord/wizard (more for the wizard side though), but it does kind of suck that most warlord buffs don't benefit the warlord. I don't see why it would have been horribly broken to allow.

 

[gribble]

See, this surprises me. My shaman has better healing than a bard, for sure. Not only do I get to heal you a surge (granted, this is a small amount of healing compared to other leaders), but I also get to heal a nearby ally additional hit points.

We haven't found this to be useful. Or at least not as useful as giving a single target more healing... Probably because we tend to find that by the time the shaman is cracking out his healing, it's typically one character (the defender or a poorly positioned striker) who needs a big whack of healing, and the extra d6 for the other party member usually goes wasted (as in, it goes to someone who needs the extra d6 less than the primary target).

If you go protector shaman, you get to grant temporary hit points, have a lot of powers that grant additional healing to your allies. And as a striker shaman, I still take a few powers that grant saves or healing surges.

The main problem isn't usually what he grants so much as how he grants it. Most other leaders grant things in a burst, so you don't have to be particular about positioning. With a shaman, it's all about the pet, so often your character needs to choose between being adjacent to the pet and getting a bonus, or being in a better tactical position (moving away from the enemy and/or into flanking, etc).

Now, the shaman may not be a dedicated leader - it definitely dabbles in the other three roles - but it can certainly fill the shoes of party leader.

And this, I think is the core of the problem. Mechanically, it's a bit of a jack of all roles and master of none - kind of like the 3e bard (and something, ironically enough, the 4e bard definitely isn't)! IME, it's generally much better to have your leader be an awesome leader, and your striker be an awesome striker, rather than both being a little bit of each...

 

[FireLance]

Warlords are great to have in your party... unless you're the one playing the warlord.

Ok, that's a bit tongue in cheek, and I do enjoy playing my MC taclord/wizard (more for the wizard side though), but it does kind of suck that most warlord buffs don't benefit the warlord. I don't see why it would have been horribly broken to allow.

IME, it's generally much better to have your leader be an awesome leader, and your striker be an awesome striker, rather than both being a little bit of each...

You do see the irony of these two posts, don't you?

 

[gribble]

You do see the irony of these two posts, don't you?

I realise you're joking a bit with that post, but the difference is that a MC warlord/wizard is both an awesome leader and and awesome controller.

Seriously... other than staying power (he has half as many powers in each combat as a pure leader/controller), he's just as good at controlling as a straight wizard, and just as good at leading as a straight warlord.

The shaman on the other hand is always not as good a leader as a warlord, and not as good a controller as a wizard (or striker as a ranger/rogue).

I hope you see the difference.

 

[Dice4Hire]

As for the shama, I share many of the misgivings others have posted. Most tiems, healing is needed in a massive dollop on a single character. Yes, the shaman is awesome when the defender has run out of surges and that 2d6 or such is all they are getting in healing. Shamans are also highly qualified to abuse some of the cold feats out there, with their nice cold at-will.

But I'll be trying to vote them off as soon as the artificer is gone.

 

[FireLance]

I hope you see the difference.

Yes. The key difference is that Primal Power isn't out yet.

Seriously though, I do agree that warlords make excellent leaders. This is from personal experience - my current character is a tactical warlord multiclass swordmage. I must confess that I haven't much of an opinion on shamans since I haven't seen one in actual play or even seriously worked through the mechanics of the class on paper.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

No matter the edition, the thief (rogue) is my least favorite class.

 

[Glyfair]

In a very close battle, the Artificer is voted off the list.

I find that interesting, because the analysis I read generally put that as one of the best balanced classes. I would have thought the early classes would be among the least balanced classes. Live and learn.

On to round 2.