D&D 4E You Don't Need a Healer in 4E... Yeah Right!

[bardolph]

But that requires smart players. Not gonna happen

I can always dream...

 

[Ketolos]

I can always dream...

Not just you

 

[NorthSaber]

We'll see how our group fares - we're one player short of a full 4-role team, and nobody wanted to play a leader or a controller... So we now have a ranger, a fighter/wizard, and a paladin who might multiclass into warlord.

Basically, the fighter (me) will try to control the battlefield as much as she can, the paladin will throw an Inspiring Word, Divine Mettle, or Lay on Hands when she can, and the ranger will dispatch the enemies if he can stay away from harm himself.

It should be interesting, and thankfully we have a great DM who can adjust the encounters to match our capabilities.

All things considered, I think my fighter will invest on damage-reducing, regeneration-inducing, and temp-hp-bestowing utilities as much as possible...

 

[Dausuul]

I agree - leaders are vital for 4E combat. Looks like they didn't manage to solve the "Who has to play the healer?" problem after all. The group I play in has an elf ranger, a dragonborn fighter, and a half-elf warlord (me); and we definitely feel the strain of my warlord's limited healing capacity compared to a cleric. Playing without a healer entirely would be brutal.

 

[keterys]

and we definitely feel the strain of my warlord's limited healing capacity compared to a cleric.

Wait, what? How is the warlord a limited healer?

 

[Dausuul]

Wait, what? How is the warlord a limited healer?

Clerics are better at healing; warlords are better at offense. See their respective power lists. It isn't that warlords can't fill the leader role, but in a long fight, we do tend to run low on healing.

 

[keterys]

I think you're making a mountain of a mole hill there, but hey, the grass is always greener. Especially the internet grass.

 

[Dausuul]

I think you're making a mountain of a mole hill there, but hey, the grass is always greener. Especially the internet grass.

*shrug* The difference between the cleric and the warlord is not huge, certainly, but it is noticeable, especially with Sacred Flame, which lets the cleric keep handing out temporary hit points throughout the fight. The warlord has no equivalent.

 

[keterys]

Just so we're clear... this is like saying having a warlock really strains a party because he's not a ranger with twin strike.

 

[Vayden]

*shrug* The difference between the cleric and the warlord is not huge, certainly, but it is noticeable, especially with Sacred Flame, which lets the cleric keep handing out temporary hit points throughout the fight. The warlord has no equivalent.

Don't forget that I'm throwing encounters from KotS scaled for 5 players at you - you guys have been keeping up with the threat level despite the "strain", so I haven't been scaling back much. You're just playing a little bit above your level.

But I do a agree that a cleric is better at healing than a warlord - that "add wisdom modifier to healing" thing goes a long way. Warlord still does the job okay, and is much more fun to play, imo.