Do we need a Leader?

[S'mon]

No combat role is absolutely necessary, but the leader role comes closest. The game basically expects the party to have at least two 'floating' surge triggers.
Not that leaderless parties are impossible, but I wouldn't want to be part of one without a good house rule or two.

The game mechanics in no way require it; published adventures* may be unbeatable at-level without a leader, but that's a different issue. Playing without a Leader makes combat scarier and more dangerous; that may be a good thing especially if combat is rare in your campaign.

*Without a leader PCs will use more healing surges between fights, will suffer more attrition, and in the typical 4e model of 3-4 encounters/day, of escalating difficulty ca EL +0 through +3, they are much more likely to TPK on the 3rd or 4th encounter.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, not required, but access to some healing is preferable...

luckily, if you look at essentials, many classes have access to some healing utility powers. You should especially look at the fighter (Slayer/knight) utility powers. If you take training in healing, you have some nice leadery powers.

Also leaders generally enable your characters in different ways. The same result can be achieved with a solid controller. You can prevent a lot of damage if he knows his tools of trade.

Ans last but not least, the extra defender or striker will help nullify monsters and as such a lot of damage is prevented.

The thing is: If you lack any role, you lack a certain way of damage mitigation and tactical options. And as such, combats get a little bit harder in general. There might be some kinds of combats that become a lot harder, but there may be combats, where an extra striker/controller/defender is worth more than a leader and actually gets easier... (at least in heroic)

 

[darkwing]

Almost all classes have some form of self healing and with an off-healer class or 2 in the party (like Paladin) it shouldn't be too much of a problem. That being said, there are leaders and then there are LEADERS. If combat is taking too long, a leader that specializes in offense can be a lot more interesting than one that specializes in healing. I just rolled a warlord for our new campaign and I didn't focus on healing. Of course I have inspiring word, as all warlords do... but where I really contribute is pumping up the DPR of our party by granting additional attacks and damage bonuses. It may seem counter-intuitive, but I'm adding more DPR to our party by being a force multiplier for our strikers than if I had played a striker myself. Plus we get some emergency healing as a bonus.

 

[wlmartin]

Almost all classes have some form of self healing and with an off-healer class or 2 in the party (like Paladin) it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

That is a little inaccurate
There are SOME non-leader classes that have healing but saying "almost all" suggests a large majority when even when you count leaders is limited.

Leaders = Healing
Non Leaders... Divine Classes = Some Healing
Other Classes = No Healing

So a better statement would be

Almost (if not all) Leaders have healing
Almost (if not all) Divine characters have some healing but less than Leaders
No other classes have healing (that I know of)

That being said, there are leaders and then there are LEADERS. If combat is taking too long, a leader that specializes in offense can be a lot more interesting than one that specializes in healing. I just rolled a warlord for our new campaign and I didn't focus on healing. Of course I have inspiring word, as all warlords do... but where I really contribute is pumping up the DPR of our party by granting additional attacks and damage bonuses. It may seem counter-intuitive, but I'm adding more DPR to our party by being a force multiplier for our strikers than if I had played a striker myself. Plus we get some emergency healing as a bonus.

It is all down to perspective.
From the perspective a player fighting round by round, a Leader with Damage seems to win the day... however that same Leader with damage reduction, healing, buffs and debuffs can often do better (purely down to the fact that buffs aid more people that attacking one monster does)

I would imagine that if you put a group of 5 PCs including one leader against a group of random beasties, that leader focused on buffing... then each time a monster gets hit you record that damage amount, each time a player gets hit you record that damage amount, you then record how long the battle takes.

Now do the same with a leader focused on battle.

I will show my arse in burtons window if the result doesnt come down to

: Time it takes to defeat the monsters, Less with Support Leader
: Amount of hits the PCs take, Less with Support Leader
: Amount of damage the PCs take (which is a sum of the total damage they took - the amount of healing they were given), Less with Support Leader
: Amount of hits against the monsters, More with Support Leader
: Amount of damage against the monsters, More with Support Leader

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There are also primal, martial and arcane non-leaders that have some kind of heling powers available to them... even when you disregard self heling and temp hp powers there are some non-divine, non-leader healing powers left.

Although, besides divine and primal powers, most other healing powers are available to defenders.

 

[wlmartin]

There are also primal, martial and arcane non-leaders that have some kind of heling powers available to them... even when you disregard self heling and temp hp powers there are some non-divine, non-leader healing powers left.

Although, besides divine and primal powers, most other healing powers are available to defenders.

What classes are you refering to that are Non Healers that have healing powers? Either you are mistaken or are thinking along the lines of powers that give you temporary hit points.

If there are any classes apart from some divine or leaders that can confer healing to other players, please let me know...

It is unadvisable to suggest that all the PCs in the party focus on self-buffs instead of getting buffs from a healer since powers that rely on your buffing (healing or other buffs) are weaker attacks and hurt you more in the long run.

The good thing about 4e is you no longer NEED a certain group type (ie no healer needed, no rogue needed, no wizard needed) however taking this the other way and putting your entire group out of balance is going to cost you in the long term game.

5 wizards sounds good and could probably handle themselves OK in some situations but in ALL situations they perform poorly.
Same goes for 5 of any type of character.

A group works best when it has
1 x Leader offering Buffs and Heals
1 x Artillery / Controller who is able to hit things far away
1 x Striker who can deal massive amounts of damage when they are needed
1 x Defender who can absorb some of the hits and draw agro
1 x (Anything else will do)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I already DID let you know...

Fighter 6; get up! Heroes of the forgotten Lands e.g.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

First non-leader healing power that came to mind was Healing Lore. Level 6 Ranger Daily Utility. I'm sure this isn't the only one. Suffice to say that they're not common, exactly, in non-leader classes, but to say that "No other classes have healing (that I know of)" just illustrates that you don't know the game as well as you think.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

get up was before and unicorn´s touch long before that...

 

[darkwing]

Leaders = Healing
Non Leaders... Divine Classes = Some Healing
Other Classes = No Healing

First of all, everyone has 2nd wind. So that alone counters your argument. Second of all, every character has magic items. Third of all every character has utility powers. If you plan on not having a dedicated healer you can compensate for it. Ideally every party would have a leader but it is by no means necessary.