PDA

View Full Version : 4e Healer for a Party of 3?



Dakaran
2010-11-22, 10:38 AM
I'm pretty new to playing D&D and some friends and I are for starters going to have a DM and 3 PCs. Would anyone have suggestions for a good "healer" class for a party of 3? Is Cleric the only class with ranged healing? I looked at the Paladin, but I don't know how I feel about only getting 3 to 4 heals a day and with only a range of touch. Am I underestimating lay on hands? Is there another class besides Cleric that's well known for healing? Is a Shaman a useful healer in a party of 3? I've only looked at classes in PHB 1 and 2 so if there's a class in PHB 3 that I'm overlooking it's not on purpose.

Thanks,
Dakaran

Kudaku
2010-11-22, 10:43 AM
Hi there! I'm not too well versed in 4e and I'm sure this post will get swordsaged in no time, but in 4th edition healer and leader can be interchanged quite easily - Warlord is the other Primary Leader in PHB 1, so that would be an option. Shaman would make a viable leader, so would the Bard.

Sipex
2010-11-22, 10:43 AM
Your choices boil down to these classes for those with dedicated healing:
Cleric (PHB1) - Heals with magic. Also good at minor tanking and providing support in battle.
Warlord (PHB1) - Heals with encouragement. Gives out buffs like candy.
Bard (PHB1) - Heals with song. Good at shifting enemies around, area affect stuff and debuffs.
Shaman (PHB1) - Heals with nature magic. Has a spirit companion.
Artificer (Eberron) - Heals with infusions (magic potions). Good at alchemy and item related things.

Each one has it's strengths and weaknesses. You also have the options of Druid and Paladin if you want someone with somewhat of a secondary healer role.

What sort of character were you thinking to make?

Dakaran
2010-11-22, 10:47 AM
What sort of character were you thinking to make?

Well, since we're only going to have a party of 3 I was hoping to be able to play a character that could heal at a range as I feel like we're likely to get a little spread out, but still be able to deal damage since there's so few of us. I've looked at the Cleric as a definite possibility, but I was wondering if I had other options that fit the needs of a small party.

Sipex
2010-11-22, 10:49 AM
Well, you're in luck, all of the leader options can heal at range. As for damage, that will be tough. Leaders can deal some damage but their advantage comes in buffing allies or debuffing enemies while dealing that damage.

I would advise a Warlord though. They're purely weapon based so you'll be geared up to hit more often with weapons, plus they have attacks which allow allies to make additional attacks (allowing for more damage).

The Glyphstone
2010-11-22, 11:02 AM
Barbarians hit enemies with their axe. Warlords hit enemies with their Barbarian.:smallcool:

Sounds like Warlord is right up your alley.

Dakaran
2010-11-22, 11:05 AM
Sounds like the Warlord is something I definitely need to look into. Thanks!

Emongnome777
2010-11-22, 11:47 AM
I second (or third?) the suggestion for a warlord. They hand out MBA's quite nicely. The key, however, will be the make-up of the rest of your party. I think two primary melee combatants and one ranged would work well. A party that small may consider having every character be able to do both ranged and melee at least to some degree. Most leaders have a mixture of melee and ranged builds, so you have options no matter which way you go. What are the other characters going to be?

Dakaran
2010-11-22, 12:03 PM
[...] What are the other characters going to be?

Right now one is a Wizard and the other is trying to decide, but he's pretty sure he wants to smash in the enemy's face so I think he's going to pick something along the line of Fighter, Barbarian, etc. Since neither Wizard or Face-Smasher have healing abilities I wanted to be able to add a little healing while still being relevant to attacking the enemies (a.k.a. I want to smash some faces too).

tcrudisi
2010-11-22, 12:42 PM
Right now one is a Wizard and the other is trying to decide, but he's pretty sure he wants to smash in the enemy's face so I think he's going to pick something along the line of Fighter, Barbarian, etc. Since neither Wizard or Face-Smasher have healing abilities I wanted to be able to add a little healing while still being relevant to attacking the enemies (a.k.a. I want to smash some faces too).

The others have been correct; your choice in Leader should be determined by what your allies are playing. Also, I would like to say that all leaders healers do so at range 5, so you won't have a problem there. (Paladins are the exception, but they are defenders, not leaders.) Playing a leader isn't the bore that it is in other games, either, since their heal is a minor action (so you still get to attack that round).

If your allies were both melees, you would not want to play a Warlord. Why not? Because then you have no ranged attacks and that would be a very bad position to be in.

However, one of your allies is a Wizard. He's ranged, so let him take care of the ranged attacks. Your other ally wants to smash faces in. Whether he's a Fighter or Barbarian is of no consequence: I would go Warlord and enable him to really do lots of damage.

Bard is also a very strong choice since you can choose between ranged and melee powers, giving your group extra flexibility. Both the Bard and Warlord won't do a lot of damage themselves, but they will allow their allies to do a lot more damage. Being a leader is a thankless job. You hit for 10 damage and your allies hit for 20, but really, 5 of what they did came from you. So in reality, you've done 20 and they've both done 15 ... but nobody will see it that way.

However, just an fyi - I do play with one small house-rule when I play a Warlord. Basically, if I allow you to make an attack when I myself do not get to make one, I roll the d20 for you. Warlords have things like Commander's Strike which allows an ally to make a basic attack instead of the Warlord. It makes for a very boring character if you are always giving up your attacks and never getting to roll. So I would get the Fighter's basic attack information (what he gets to hit and to damage) and roll those when allowing him to make an attack. I ignore this rule if I use a power (there's an encounter power I can't think of the name right now, but if you hit, your ally gets to make an attack on the target) that lets us both roll, I just roll for myself. I'm not so greedy as to take every attack I grant away, just the ones that prevent me from rolling on my turn. :smallbiggrin: (And when I play a Warlord, I've never sat down at a table with anyone who minds this rule. They understand it and usually say something like, "Yeah, that's why I don't like to play enabling Warlords.")

TricksyAndFalse
2010-11-22, 12:52 PM
PHB3 adds two more leaders, the ardent and the runepriest.

You said you thought you might get spread out often. A disadvantage to the warlord only using PHB1 and PHB2 is that while you can heal at range, you need to be in melee proximity to use all your other powers, including the ability to use Commander's Strike on your face-smashing friend. You'll need to be standing in melee range of the target you want him to hit, so you can't get too far from him.

If you still think you'll spread out a lot, I suggest the cleric instead. If you think you might stay grouped to make use of the warlord's Commander's Strike (excellent if your friend chooses fighter, just okay if your friend chooses barbarian), the warlord is a lot of fun.

Dakaran
2010-11-22, 01:02 PM
PHB3 adds two more leaders, the ardent and the runepriest. [...]

I don't really know anything about the Ardent or Runepriest. They may be other leader options, but would they be good classes for the situation that I'm in?

Blackfang108
2010-11-22, 01:14 PM
(excellent if your friend chooses fighter, just okay if your friend chooses barbarian

As OP is looking for an increase to Damage, you've got that backwards.

FoE
2010-11-22, 01:16 PM
For a small party, I might suggest "bard" because they are also excellent skillmonkeys.

DragonBaneDM
2010-11-22, 02:41 PM
I don't really know anything about the Ardent or Runepriest. They may be other leader options, but would they be good classes for the situation that I'm in?

The Ardent uses the psychic powers of emotions to help his friends. He's a little complex, but if you want to be the empath of the group, go for it. Uses weapons in melée, and has Charisma as his main stat.

Runepriests are fun, but in my experience they are VERY complex. I'm not suggesting it on the grounds that it may overwhelm you. Each power has two sepeate effects you have to choose one, and each gives you bonuses you have to keep track of. Not for new players, no sirree.

I vote Warlord, good sir. Cleric CAN be better at plain old healing, but You'll keep up in healing as well, don't fret.

Warlords are a blast and you'll be much better at enabling your friends, especially if Face Smasher goes Barbarian.

I'd encourage that actually. Barbarians have a few self healing powers, which would really shine in a small team like your's.

Dakaran
2010-11-22, 02:52 PM
So it definitely sounds like Warlord is the way to go. Since I don't have experience with a Warlord, can anyone offer some suggestions on a build (including a race) if, in my party of 3, I want to be relevant to combat, but be able to heal my allies? Are there any can't miss feats?

Thanks!

Sipex
2010-11-22, 02:55 PM
I've not built a Warlord before but if you're optimising then you'll want a race which has a natural charisma bonus. Beyond that I'll let someone with more experience chime in.

Tengu_temp
2010-11-22, 03:14 PM
Being a leader is a thankless job. You hit for 10 damage and your allies hit for 20, but really, 5 of what they did came from you. So in reality, you've done 20 and they've both done 15 ... but nobody will see it that way.

Weapon-based leaders deal as much damage as any other non-striker on heroic tier. The difference gets bigger only on paragon tier, and even then you can mitigate a lot of if by having a proper build. You can also pack defenses and become a secondary defender - in my 4e game the warlord has the highest AC in the whole group.


I've not built a Warlord before but if you're optimising then you'll want a race which has a natural charisma bonus. Beyond that I'll let someone with more experience chime in.

Actually, unless you're building a lazylord (which is not recommended for such a small party), the most important stat is strength, then intelligence or charisma (depending on the build).

Fallbot
2010-11-22, 03:18 PM
Never played a warlord but from what I've heard eladrin have very good feat support, and they boost the right stats. Dragonborn and genasi are good options too, at a glance.

tcrudisi
2010-11-22, 04:28 PM
Weapon-based leaders deal as much damage as any other non-striker on heroic tier. The difference gets bigger only on paragon tier, and even then you can mitigate a lot of if by having a proper build. You can also pack defenses and become a secondary defender - in my 4e game the warlord has the highest AC in the whole group.

Weapon-based leaders hit for weapon-based damage, which is the lowest of all the weapon classes.

Look at it this way. There are four roles: Controllers, Leaders, Defenders, and Strikers. There aren't any weapon/martial-based controllers yet (if there is one, it's not coming to mind right now). That leaves Leaders, Defenders, and Strikers.

Obviously, a weapon-based Striker is going to do top damage. So the question then becomes: Do Leaders and Defenders do the same amount of damage? In the majority of cases, the answer is "no". The Defender will do more damage because the Defender will have some way of enforcing his mark to make sure the monster stays on him. If the monster strays, the Defender will punish him, typically with extra damage, which means that Defenders will average more damage than the Leader. The Swordmage is an exception, but since he can basically prevent all damage in heroic tier (the tier it seems you were discussing), he can punch in some extra damage with White Lotus Master anyway.

I understand the logic that the Warlord can be a "secondary defender", I just feel that its hogwash. Unless the Leader does tricky things (feats to get marks and what-not), he won't have anything other than an Opportunity Attack to convince the monster to stay on him. Considering that the Leader's OA is typically ... not very good ... that's not much of an incentive. Furthermore, nothing stops the monster from shift+charge, or shift+attack, or just attack an adjacent ally. The Leader might have good defenses, but good defenses does not a Defender make.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is: the Leader will do the least damage in the party (barring optimization). However, that Leader will usually be responsible for more damage than even the Striker by giving out both bonuses to hit and damage or just extra attacks.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-11-22, 05:02 PM
If Player2 goes with a Barbarian (which sounds like what he wants, as a fighter doesn't do so well in the damage department. Fighters are for defending others, not smashing faces.) then I suggest a Paladin. I only have three players, and the pally provides plenty of healing for the three of them, and acts as a decent defender as his primary job. You'll definitely need at least one defender to protect the squishies. Paladins are great at this 'cause they have enough healing capabilities to keep people alive, but still do their normal job as well.

Excession
2010-11-22, 05:19 PM
I would recommend a Str/Cha warlord or Bard myself, mostly because you need a party face for social interactions. The Bard is better at it because they come with a better class skill list, but Warlord is fine as well. If going Warlord use character backgrounds use one that adds something useful to your skill list. If going Bard I'd recommend the Cha/Con melee build, because you need someone else in the front lines.

As a starting point, here's an example build I threw together for level 4. I used Genasi because I like them, and Earthshock is a decent power for a melee leader. Half-orc would also work well; their racial is good if you want to boost your own damage.

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
level 4
Genasi, Warlord
Build: Inspiring Warlord
Warlord: Combat Leader
Commanding Presence: Inspiring Presence
Elemental Manifestation: Earthsoul
Earthshock: Earthshock Strength
Background: Society - Poor (Streetwise class skill)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 19, Con 13, Dex 11, Int 12, Wis 8, Cha 17.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 13, Dex 11, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 16.


AC: 18 Fort: 18 Reflex: 13 Will: 16
HP: 45 Surges: 8 Surge Value: 11

TRAINED SKILLS
Intimidate +10, Athletics +10, Diplomacy +10, Streetwise +10

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +1, Arcana +3, Bluff +5, Dungeoneering +1, Endurance +4, Heal +1, History +3, Insight +1, Nature +3, Perception +1, Religion +3, Stealth +1, Thievery +1

FEATS
Level 1: Weapon Proficiency (Fullblade)
Level 2: Toughness
Level 4: Weapon Focus (Heavy Blade)

POWERS
Warlord at-will 1: Wolf Pack Tactics
Warlord at-will 1: Furious Smash
Warlord encounter 1: Leaf on the Wind
Warlord daily 1: Bastion of Defense
Warlord utility 2: Shake It Off
Warlord encounter 3: Warlord's Strike

ITEMS
Chainmail, Adventurer's Kit, Dagger, Fullblade, Javelin (2), Climber's Kit
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======

Blackfang108
2010-11-22, 05:20 PM
If Player2 goes with a Barbarian (which sounds like what he wants, as a fighter doesn't do so well in the damage department. Fighters are for defending others, not smashing faces.) then I suggest a Paladin. I only have three players, and the pally provides plenty of healing for the three of them, and acts as a decent defender as his primary job. You'll definitely need at least one defender to protect the squishies. Paladins are great at this 'cause they have enough healing capabilities to keep people alive, but still do their normal job as well.

In my experience, Defender can be the most disposable role in a party. I really recommend Tactical Warlord over Paladin.

STR/INT main stats, have an 18 after Racial modifiers in INT. Commander's Strike and WPT for at wills, and focus on Int-Based riders, if any.

Tengu_temp
2010-11-22, 05:26 PM
Obviously, a weapon-based Striker is going to do top damage. So the question then becomes: Do Leaders and Defenders do the same amount of damage? In the majority of cases, the answer is "no". The Defender will do more damage because the Defender will have some way of enforcing his mark to make sure the monster stays on him. If the monster strays, the Defender will punish him, typically with extra damage, which means that Defenders will average more damage than the Leader.

You're talking as if defenders were the only classes capable of making OAs. Also, dunno about your games, but in mine most enemies prefer not to eat an OA, especially not from a defender. A defender can easily deal more damage than a leader if he's built for damage, but then he becomes a partial striker and his defense suffers.


Considering that the Leader's OA is typically ... not very good ... that's not much of an incentive.

Warlords and melee clerics are strength-based. They have some of the best OAs in the game, from non-defenders. Defender OAs are better because they can stop you from moving, not because they deal more damage.


Furthermore, nothing stops the monster from shift+charge, or shift+attack, or just attack an adjacent ally. The Leader might have good defenses, but good defenses does not a Defender make.

What happened to tactics? Stay in the way so that the enemy will have to get past you to reach the squishy group members. Adjacent allies are not your responsibility, you're the secondary defender.

On a sidenote, from my experience it's better to have high defenses than a sticky defender in the party who will try to get hit in your stead. There's not a single real tank in my level 13 party (the group fighter is built for damage-dealing) and they easily plow through all encounters. The only squishy party member is the warlock who almost never gets targetted.

mikau013
2010-11-22, 05:31 PM
Keep in mind that in 4e if you intentionally make bad choices you will of course suffer a bit, but if you take average choices you won't feel useless. Thus there is no need to optimize as much as in 3e if you play with people who like high powered games.

What you need to decide is what you want to do other than healing. All leaders in 4e are basically good at healing and can be build to be even better at it or other things you would prefer.

And if you want in depth advice on a certain class, google <classname + handbook> the handbooks of the classes on the wizard site are actually really good.

BladeSingerXIV
2010-11-22, 05:33 PM
I played an Inspiring (Str/Cha) Warlord from level 1-10, and had good results with it. I second the vote of going that build because the party needs a face. It works pretty well multiclassing, and for that I suggest a Defender class with your party setup. Myself, I went with Paladin because it fit my fluff, but that marking ability never really did very much for me. I probably would have been better off with Warden or some such.

I get what you mean about all that, tcrudisi, but a warlord as secondary defender actually works fairly well. With the right positioning, which Warlords are fairly good at (see the at-will Wolf Pack Tactics) it was never very difficult to keep the monsters interested in attacking me rather than going after the wizard. Maybe our monsters were just dumber than average, but it worked out well.

Mando Knight
2010-11-22, 08:58 PM
There aren't any weapon/martial-based controllers yet (if there is one, it's not coming to mind right now).

There's a hand axe stuck in the tree behind you. It's signed, From Seeker, with love. :smalltongue:

Katana_Geldar
2010-11-22, 09:16 PM
If you pair an Inspiring Warlord up with a optimised to the eyeballs striker, you can be very hard to beat. Last session I DMed was the final fight in the first chapter of Toh, and one of the critical elements that enabled the party to overcome the encounter was the warlord working with the optimised monk. The warlord would flank with him and keeping giving out MBAs to the monk. I had never seen a warlord in action before and was very, very impressed.

However, it must be said they are a party of eight and they also had a healbot cleric and an uber tank dragonbord pally.

tcrudisi
2010-11-22, 09:55 PM
You're talking as if defenders were the only classes capable of making OAs. Also, dunno about your games, but in mine most enemies prefer not to eat an OA, especially not from a defender. A defender can easily deal more damage than a leader if he's built for damage, but then he becomes a partial striker and his defense suffers.

Huh? No, I mentioned the OA's before. In fact, you quoted me with it earlier.

And the point I am trying to make is with two perfectly normal characters: a leader and a defender. The defender will do more damage without having to be built for it. Why? Because his mark punishment will eventually come into play.


Warlords and melee clerics are strength-based. They have some of the best OAs in the game, from non-defenders. Defender OAs are better because they can stop you from moving, not because they deal more damage.

Some of the best OAs in the game, from non-defenders and non-strikers, yes. However, their OAs are still weaker than defenders which puts them lower on the damage pole than a defender.


What happened to tactics? Stay in the way so that the enemy will have to get past you to reach the squishy group members. Adjacent allies are not your responsibility, you're the secondary defender.

It's still hilariously easy for the monster to shift + charge most of the time, even if you are standing in the way. The leader can only rarely function as a second tank if the DM has a strong grasp of tactics (I am assuming a little bit higher level here, when the monsters are above animal intelligence). The leader has no ability, other than the standard OA, to keep the monster from leaving him, which means the monster will leave him if there is a more tempting target. So the leader fails to defend.


On a sidenote, from my experience it's better to have high defenses than a sticky defender in the party who will try to get hit in your stead. There's not a single real tank in my level 13 party (the group fighter is built for damage-dealing) and they easily plow through all encounters. The only squishy party member is the warlock who almost never gets targetted.

In my experiences it really depends on the party makeup more than anything. I recently played a paragon tier game (we started at 16 and went up to 19 by the end) where we had a Wizard, Invoker, Sorcerer, and myself a Fighter|Battlemind defender of doom that did ~130 points of damage when the monster violated my mark and ~150 when a monster not marked by me used a ranged attack. Honestly, my character didn't need to be there, despite being the most highly optimized build at the table. Those three did so much control and AoE damage that I was just there "in case everything went wrong." And after playing for 3 days/nights straight, nothing ever went wrong. My point? The dynamics of those three was so insane that even my munchkin character was not getting to contribute much.

Overall though, my point still stands: the leader will do less damage than the defender. Heck, the defender will also spend some resources on improving damage just to make himself stickier (even if it's just Iron Armbands and maybe Weapon Focus).


There's a hand axe stuck in the tree behind you. It's signed, From Seeker, with love. :smalltongue:

Hahahaha. You are absolutely correct. Thank you for correcting me. In my defense though, the Seeker is easily forgettable. The poor class is just... well, I'll just leave it at "it's not up to par with the other Controllers." :smalltongue:

Endarire
2010-11-22, 10:00 PM
I've heard these are the best 4E classes.

Controller: Wizard
Defender: Paladin
Leader: Cleric
Striker: Ranger

Have your group pick 3 to their taste.

Grogmir
2010-11-23, 05:25 AM
The list you present are those that are thought to be best at the PRIMARY role. It does not take into account secondary roles. (Making it useless imo)

because imo in 4e; a mixed character > Min/Max Sole focus.

For that reason, and to cover skills I would suggest Bard, with a mix of Melee and Ranger powers.

2nd vote of Warlord - really good if you're going dugeon crawling - less good in open spaces.

Final word though - its very important - more so with 3 PCs - that the group has a chat about who's covering which skills and what roles (Melee or ranged? etc) each other is playing to make sure you've got the right mix.

mikau013
2010-11-24, 11:24 AM
I've heard these are the best 4E classes.

Controller: Wizard
Defender: Paladin
Leader: Cleric
Striker: Ranger

Have your group pick 3 to their taste.

Huh, I keep hearing the best are

Controller: Invoker / Wizard (both pretty equal)
Defender: Fighter
Leader: Warlord
Striker: Ranger (but boring :smallamused:)

DragonBaneDM
2010-11-24, 02:11 PM
Tips, eh?

Okay, here's what I suggest. Genasi and Dragonborn are fantastic, yes. But don't rule out Tiefling or Half-Elf. Tieflings can do some sweet stuff with Fire attacks, and Half-Elves remain the most versatile race in the game. Human is also up there, but you'll taper off from the rest of the races come Paragon Tier.

Tactical and Inspiring remain, in my opinion, two of the best choices out there for Commanding Presences.

Pick up Commander's Strike, regardless of whether you go Tactical or Inspiring. If you're Tactical, then it will be awesome, and if not oh well. You should still have some remnant of an Int mod, and you only lose like 2 or 3 damage in Heroic Tier. This is just so that your Barbarian can wail on stuff better. If you don't like the idea of this just being melee, pick up Direct the Strike from Martial Power 2 instead.

As for your other At-Will, go crazy. Seriously man whichever looks cool. In 4e you can always afford to pick the second at-will just for fun since your 1st pick is usually your default. My Ranger uses Nimble Strike once every 3 fights and my Cleric only uses Sacred Flame on minions and non bloodied creatures.

Fill in whichever encounters and dailies you prefer. (Lead the Attack and Stand the Fallen still come to mind). And roll with it. Warlords are fun, and I hope you love this character.

I'm not too familiar with Feats. I know some Paragon and Epic tricks, but meh, that doesn't help ya much, and I'm sure you'll figure it out by the time you hit that level.

EDIT: And Invokers are in the dirt when it comes to comparing to Wizards. The Psion barely comes close, and is only considered because of it's awesome ability to make the Elite or Solo look like it's 4 levels lower than it actually is.