Wizards become the "needed" character over Clerics

[JVisgaitis]

::cough:: Marketing ploy ::cough::

LOL. Yeah, because I need to do marketing to get people to my website so I can sell them nothing. How does that make sense?

 

[Rechan]

And to the guys at WotC, why go with 3 Strikers instead of 2 Controllers? Was another damage dealer really that necessary?

IIRC, the Warlock originally was a controller, but as it developed, the abilities just sifted more towards doing damage to single targets.

I dislike the lack of an Option, but I look forward to new controllers.

 

[Rechan]

LOL. Yeah, because I need to do marketing to get people to my website so I can sell them nothing. How does that make sense?

You don't have to be selling something ot be marketing. The original poster's implication is that you're just trying to get attention to your review.

 

[ozziewolf]

Wizards aren't needed at all... that isn't to say they're useless they're just not required.

My group is currently running a campaign with no Wizard and we haven't had any problems. Currently we're a Warlord, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger. We did the dungeon in the back of the book and made it through with no problems. The Warlord was having a rough go with his attack rolls and we still didn't have any problems.

Also the dungeon was scaled for 5 people because our DM forgot to lower it down for 4 people and while the fights where tough it wasn't ridiculously so.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Yeah, you can do without a controller easily enough.

I really wouldn't know as I only played 1 game and we had one. It does seem like the roles aren't strictly necessary. I do find it odd that they didn't include an additional controller though.

 

[JVisgaitis]

You don't have to be selling something ot be marketing. The original poster's implication is that you're just trying to get attention to your review.

I'm not. I removed my link.

 

[Eytan Bernstein]

At first when I started playtesting, I thought the controller was the only necessary role, but I eventually changed my mind. Ranged strikers like the warlock and archery ranger can handle distance damage, though they can't hit as many targets as a wizard. The defender is important, but the leader and striker characters are reasonably hardy. The role that most parties cannot do without is the leader. Most of the parties in the playtests and campaigns I've been playing have two leaders and they still always run out of their healing word type powers. Mechanically, IMO, the most optimized party is one with each of the four roles + one extra leader. In fact, some of the other characters multiclassing with a leader class is also really handy.

 

[Kichwas]

The big problem with all of the previous editions was you always had someone that "got stuck" with the Cleric. Personally, I hate Clerics and WotC solved the problem beautifully as the Warlord is a great class.

Why do I play WoW more than I do City of Heroes?

Hmm...

Because WoW needs healers, and in an MMO, if I'm not on a tank, I want to be on a healer. City of heroes doesn't need healers.

Point...

Each of the classic roles existed to fill a nitch among different types of players.

In my WoW guild, there are people who hate being healers. Solution, they play something else. But if there was no need for a healer, they'd lose out on me.

When I sit down to DnD, I want a healer or a bookworm. Druid, bard, or perhaps cleric. That sort of thing. If, as you claim, you don't need healers anymore... my point in sitting down to DnD has largely been taken away. If your point is correct that is.


4e is somewhat a tabletop MMO, and its a theme in MMOs to have more DPS options than you need - so... I'd wager that's where they were going with Wizards. Personally in 1e through 3e, I played classes like Wizards when I wanted something like what an MMO would consider a crafter. I wanted a bookworm, not mobile artillery. 1e - 3e let you make a wizard as either artillery or a bookworm, or even a bit of both... It appears that flexibility is gone in 4e... Because, honestly, in an MMO, you don't need bookworm combatants... that's for those idiots who 'cyber' in Goldshire Inn...

But hey... when I sit down to a table top game... I'm not looking to play an MMO...

 

[Rechan]

If, as you claim, you don't need healers anymore... my point in sitting down to DnD has largely been taken away. If your point is correct that is.

Need and Want are two different things.

Your party can SURVIVE without a leader. It's just going to be rough doing. You can only heal once in combat. Healing potions heal a static amount.

But a leader is going to make the party's job so much easier. In-combat healing is a minor action. Leaders provide something to the exchange, either in tactics (Warlord), Healing (Warlord/Cleric), offense (Warlord/Cleric), and ranged attacks (Cleric). Simply put, the party has staying power with a leader.

Another nice thing? A paladin can be a secondary healer, even though he's doing more defending. Lay on Hands, plus several of the Charisma-based powers allow you to let an ally use a healing surge, or lets you take the damage an ally would receive, etc.

There will be a place for you.

 

[Relique du Madde]

LOL. Yeah, because I need to do marketing to get people to my website so I can sell them nothing. How does that make sense?

Marketing is not only about selling items right off the bat; it is about also creating favorable conditions for the sale of future (as well as current) goods and services. What WoTC successfully did was create a NEED and DESIRE for there to be symmetry within each character roles by having there be an asymmetrical number of classes within each role.

As a result they now have the ability to sell you a future product which has a guarantee of containing a new controller class. Unfortunately, they product will also contain 1 defender, and another striker class to insure that you will buy the PH2 which will have 1 leader and additional controller class (which will insure that the roles will remain asymmetrical).