Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alkiera" data-source="post: 4261468" data-attributes="member: 41353">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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I see the same arguments coming up here about the warlord in 4e.&nbsp; I suspect that we may eventually learn that his way of helping the party is at least as effective as playing 'the healer'.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alkiera, post: 4261468, member: 41353"] 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'. [/QUOTE]

Verification