Warlord - I don't get it

[Kez Darksun]

Honestly, I'm having a little trouble understanding this. Far from requiring a cleric, I think the game is perfectly runnable without any healer in the party.

I'm puzzled as to what was so hard to understand. I took a look at the two available classes that fill the Leader role, of which one of their functions is to be a healer for the party. After looking through most of the powers for each briefly, I was dismayed at the discrepencies in healing ability that I saw at my first glance, and posted about that. If you don't feel a healer is required in your party, more power to you. As for me, until I get a chance to test 4e out for myself and see how things play out, I'm going to want a healer in the group.

 

[Aldarc]

I understand completely about not wanting to be the one that gets stuck playing "the healer", thats one of the reasons why it took a while to play a Cletic in 3.0/3.5. One of the things I did and do like about 4th edition was that it allowed the player to heal while doing other things like attacking. I had just hoped that, with the Warlord being the Martial Leader, I'd see more powers for the Warlord that did that than I have so far. I'll have to take a longer look at the two classes and see what impressions I get from a higher level comparison as well as pay more attention to the Warlords other tricks and evaluate the class further.

Wizards said early on regarding their design of the cleric and warlord that if you wanted to be the master healer, you would pick the cleric, and if you wanted a warrior tactician character who buffed, then you would pick the warlord.

 

[Alkiera]

As of right now, if I wanted to select a healer for a party without any other considerations of other sub-roles, there is no question that I would take a Cleric first every time. If there was room, I'd love to have a Warlord as a back-up healer, but there is no way I'd feel comfortable with a Warlord as the only healer in the group.

I think perhaps you've taken the fact that the cleric got put into the 'leader' role to mean that all leaders will be healers. There was a similar perception problem in another game I played which had similar roles defined; of the 6 or so options for the role that matched 4e's Leader, there was only one who had more than one healing power, and some that had no healing power whatsoever. For more than a year, players of that role with the 'healing' option were greatly sought after, and others more or less shunned; the other options helped the party in less obvious ways, and it took a LONG time for them to be accepted. One option vastly boosted the defenses of the party, to the extent that enemy attacks only rarely hit, and had no ability to heal, as it didn't need it, people almost never took damage. Another option had a lot of powers that weakened the enemies so they did less damage, were less accurate, had lower defenses, etc; making them easy pickings. They had a minor heal power, but it was really all that was needed to top off after the party had blown through the enemy with ease.

It literally took about 2 years before people in general got around to accepting that preventing damage in the first place was just as effective (if not moreso) than healing it after the fact. I see the same arguments coming up here about the warlord in 4e. I suspect that we may eventually learn that his way of helping the party is at least as effective as playing 'the healer'.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm puzzled as to what was so hard to understand. I took a look at the two available classes that fill the Leader role, of which one of their functions is to be a healer for the party.

The point is, 4E is designed so that you don't absolutely need a Leader. In previous editions, if you didn't have a cleric you were boned, since clerical magic was the only source of quick healing. With second winds and shorts rests in 4E, you no longer need a cleric to regain your hp.

 

[Lizard]

The point is, 4E is designed so that you don't absolutely need a Leader. In previous editions, if you didn't have a cleric you were boned, since clerical magic was the only source of quick healing. With second winds and shorts rests in 4E, you no longer need a cleric to regain your hp.

OK, my play experience is limited to 8 hours of KOTS, but...while I agree you don't need a CLERIC, you do need a LEADER. SW only allows you 1 healing surge/encounter, and while my early fears were that no one could die in 4e, I am now quite convinced the game is just as deadly as ever, especially if the party doesn't coordinate their actions well. It might be possible to survive without a leader, but I'd say they're the most necessary archetype, except if you're a solo player, in which case, a defender might have the highest overall survivability. Two or more players...one should be a Leader. IMO.

 

[Victim]

I agree that having a leader is important. Sometimes it seems like the biggest advantage of the PCs is their ability to heal.

 

[Blackeagle]

I'm puzzled as to what was so hard to understand. I took a look at the two available classes that fill the Leader role, of which one of their functions is to be a healer for the party. After looking through most of the powers for each briefly, I was dismayed at the discrepencies in healing ability that I saw at my first glance, and posted about that.

I think you're a little too fixated on the healing part. Look at this more broadly. A leader's role is to enhance the effectiveness of the other members of the party (which is why I feel the leader is the most disposable of the four roles, particularly in a small party). Warlords enhance the other members primarily by giving them tactical advantages, and secondarily by healing and buffing them. Clerics enhance other member's primarily by healing and secondarily by buffing. I'm sure we'll see other types of leaders as time goes on (my guess is the Bard will be a buffing focused leader). The cleric is better at healing, but healing is not the measure of a leader, it's just one of many paths. The two classes are equally good at their actual job, which is enhancing the effectiveness of the other party members.

If you don't feel a healer is required in your party, more power to you. As for me, until I get a chance to test 4e out for myself and see how things play out, I'm going to want a healer in the group.

Why is "a healer is vital" your default assumption?

 

[hong]

I think you're a little too fixated on the healing part. Look at this more broadly. A leader's role is to enhance the effectiveness of the other members of the party (which is why I feel the leader is the most disposable of the four roles, particularly in a small party). Warlords enhance the other members primarily by giving them tactical advantages, and secondarily by healing and buffing them. Clerics enhance other member's primarily by healing and secondarily by buffing. I'm sure we'll see other types of leaders as time goes on (my guess is the Bard will be a buffing focused leader). The cleric is better at healing, but healing is not the measure of a leader, it's just one of many paths. The two classes are equally good at their actual job, which is enhancing the effectiveness of the other party members.



Why is "a healer is vital" your default assumption?

Possibly because it always is, in any game where "party medic" is an actual PC schtick.

 

[Destil]

You're thinking a bit too much in 1-3E terms if you worry too much about a 'primary healer'.

A cleric does offer some extra healing, but not a lot. Almost all of their powers that heal expend the target's healing surges. The cleric no longer adds huge numbers of hit points to the group's total.

...that said...

The cleric is a stronger healer. Healing word and Inspiring Word are identical, but the cleric adds his Wis bonus to all healing powers. In addition the cleric has some strong daily utility powers that should help healing a lot (mass cure light wounds, divine vigor). But the warlord still has their fair share, and they tend to get a better selection of encounter healing utilities vs. the cleric's better dailies.

For example cure light wounds doesn't spend a surge and heals +wis +cha HP. Touch range, daily cleric utility 2.
Aid the injured is also a touch healing power. But instead of extra HP the target spends their surge. The benefit is the warlord can do this once an encounter.

Neither class will do what a cleric did in previous editions and triple the party's total HP every day.

A group healing oriented cleric may come close to that for one encounter a day, if everything happens perfectly (lots of AoE damage, since the cleric would need to hit everyone with a useful divine vigor or mass cure). But only for one fight a day, the rest the cleric would only be adding about an added 50% of total HP.

While a warlord designed to do so could double the group's total HP every fight (at a cost of burning surges faster).

 

[Kaffis]

Let's be honest, there is never a good class for a jerk.

I demand to play a Warlord as my first D&D 4 character. Why, oh, why, will I be the primary 4E DM for some time?

Ditto. Though, I can't resist the notion of getting some butt-kicking in, too, so I may, when the time comes, try a multiclass with a TWF ranger.