Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fba827" data-source="post: 5103753" data-attributes="member: 807">Although someone already quoted it, I'm quoting this again to save myself typing <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Some of the leader classes to focus on the healing aspect of it (such as the cleric, and shaman).The warlord and bard are more about tacticl positioning and buffs (and/or granting allies some extra attacks). -- Because you won't necessarily -need- as much healing if you are buffed to hit more often/do more damage to kill the enemies faster or positioned better to get flanking/positioned better to not be in zones or not get flanked/etc - that's all more proactive actions (doing something before allies do to make them do it better)... versus reactive leading which is the healing them after they get damaged.Of course, if you/your group specifically wants a leader that is focused in healing, then cleric (the best) or shaman (probably second best) is the way to go.So it really comes down to preferred play style of the player, and preferred request of what the group wants more of... There is nothing wrong with being a strong healer, but at the same time, there is nothing wrong with being focused on the other aspects of the leader classed either.</blockquote>