My thoughts of Roles - from Races and Classes

Scribble said:

Or Shakespeare, or Beowulf, or Anne Rice, or The Bible, or The King Arthur Stuff... Or well... just about anything dealing with humans.

Click to expand...

Yes. You are right. The theme of human corruptability is quite pervasive. I mentioned Tolkien specifically for two reasons. First, his works are where I first encountered this theme. Second, his fantasy stories are fairly popular in the RPG world, I'd warrant.

Najo said:

This is part of my point. The role "leader" shoe horns. What if we want to have a class with support features but is not story-wise a leader type? The bard would fit here to a degree, does that make him the leader? Support is the actual role being filled on the team.

Not one of the classes is the leader. Not one even acts as the leader. The leader is the guys everyone is listening to over the vent, who have good ideas. Leader is, misleading so to speak.

Click to expand...

But see, I think whats happening is the idea of "leader" shouldn't really be thought of in a "story" way. In this mode it's a purely game term used to describe the way it effects the game.

The leader is the leader not because of story (in game or out of game) rousing speeches and overall decision making abilities.

The Leader is the leader specifically because the things it does and can do (in game) in a way almost dictate what other will do.

Think of the Queen in Chess. She acts in a leader role because when she moves into action, in a way it almost dictates the next move your opponent can make. (if he doesn't want any of his pieces lost.)

The Cleric (at least I think) will be similar. When he moves into action other characters (opponents or allies) will be largely influenced by his actions when determining their own.

Raven Crowking said:

Thanks for the response. I have to admit that I've pretty much stopped keeping up with all of the announcements. When I read the "How Adventures Have Changed" thread, the Warlord was described in ways that made me think Hey! That's a bard! I accept the correction, though (and the aforementioned thread was just snarky guesses, anyway).

Click to expand...

*handwave* No sweat. I'm an editor, I can't help but correct misstatements.

Raven Crowking said:

From what I've read, though, the Warlord does seem very bard-like, and you are going to have your hands full making a bard that doesn't step on the Warlord's schtick.

Click to expand...

Oh, that's *easy.* The cleric (divine leader) doesn't look anything like the warlord (martial leader) and they'll both look, feel, and play different than the bard (arcane leader). Power source aside, there's plenty of design space to make them distinct.

Wolfspider said:

Yes. You are right. The theme of human corruptability is quite pervasive. I mentioned Tolkien specifically for two reasons. First, his works are where I first encountered this theme. Second, his fantasy stories are fairly popular in the RPG world, I'd warrant.

Click to expand...

Well, perhaps some kid somewhere will first encounter the theme in D&D like you first encountered it in the works of Tolkien...

It's kind of an Archetype I'd say. The corruptible human struggling to overcome, and do what's right despite his flaws...

Scribble said:

The leader is the leader not because of story (in game or out of game) rousing speeches and overall decision making abilities.

The Leader is the leader specifically because the things it does and can do (in game) in a way almost dictate what other will do.

Click to expand...

The primary function of a group "leader" is to direct the others in such a way that they support one another. Interestingly, that's always been true of how play revolved around the cleric - the quintessential "Leader" class.

If the cleric is willing and able to cast healing spells, the group can stay in combat. Sometimes, against a powerful opponent, what the cleric decides to do determines what the party does. If the cleric drops a buff on the party, they're going to fight. If he beats a hasty retreat, the rest of the group follows.

It's not that they have to, but certainly in 3e, a group that tries to go toe-to-toe with a powerful opponent after their cleric has decided to split is asking for trouble. The cleric can't exactly "give orders," but he's certainly "leading by example."

He hesitates: we wait.
He buffs the party: we attack.
He pauses to heal: we cover him.
He runs away: we follow or we die.

Whatever you want to call it, mechanically, that's leading. The party does what the cleric player thinks is a good idea. Unless the team's leadership is specifically taken by another character, whose primary role is to direct how the party members support one another.

WotC_Miko said:

Not when the sidebar right under the leader role discussion (all of a paragraph, btw) flat-out says it's not. Oh, what the hey, here's the text:

Leader, Not Boss
Clerics and warlords (and other leaders) encourage and motivate their adventuring companions, but just because they fill the leader role doesn’t mean they’re necessarily a group’s spokesperson or commander. The “party leader”—if the group has one—might as easily be a charismatic warlock or authoritative paladin. Leaders (the role) fulfill their function through their mechanics; party leaders are born through roleplaying.

Click to expand...

It still is misleading. I thought of the leader being a more provocative descriptor too, but ironically, the role of support seems to be missing. There are players who look for support roles to play actaully. They LIKE them.

The defination of leader is: lead·er (ldr)
n.
1. One that leads or guides.
2. One who is in charge or in command of others.
3.
a. One who heads a political party or organization.
b. One who has influence or power, especially of a political nature.
4. Music
a. A conductor, especially of orchestra, band, or choral group.
b. The principal performer in an orchestral section or a group.
5. The foremost animal, such as a horse or dog, in a harnessed team.
6. A loss leader.
7. Chiefly British The main editorial in a newspaper.
8. leaders Printing Dots or dashes in a row leading the eye across a page, as in an index entry.
9. A pipe for conducting liquid.
10. A short length of gut, wire, or similar material by which a hook is attached to a fishing line.
11. A blank strip at the end or beginning of a film or tape used in threading or winding.
12. Botany The growing apex or main shoot of a shrub or tree.
13. An economic indicator.

The first entry of a leader in the thesaurus is BOSS.

I understand that supporter is not as heroic as defender, controller or striker. I just think something that says: "I enhance the party, I do cool proactive boosting things, I interact with and protect the group and I remove the bad controller stuff that the enemy does." is the type of term that is needed but without confusing new players. Leader doesn't do this well.

Scribble said:

But see, I think whats happening is the idea of "leader" shouldn't really be thought of in a "story" way. In this mode it's a purely game term used to describe the way it effects the game.

The leader is the leader not because of story (in game or out of game) rousing speeches and overall decision making abilities.

The Leader is the leader specifically because the things it does and can do (in game) in a way almost dictate what other will do.

Think of the Queen in Chess. She acts in a leader role because when she moves into action, in a way it almost dictates the next move your opponent can make. (if he doesn't want any of his pieces lost.)

The Cleric (at least I think) will be similar. When he moves into action other characters (opponents or allies) will be largely influenced by his actions when determining their own.

Click to expand...

Ok, I want something clear. I am not confused myself nor would I care about the roles as an advance player. The primary goal of 4e is to make the game accesible to people who do not play D&D yet, but knows someone who does. These roles are for them. Your girlfriend reads leader, and she is going to think that those classes boss people around. Then you explain to her what it means, and she now has to redefine a common term and way of percieving the word Leader. This is unnecessary and misleading to those players.

If the term was coordinator, enhancer, booster, supporter or something to that effect, and the description said "

Supporter: A character who heals, aids or "buffs" other characters. Supporters are often found behind or near the frontline using their powers to enhance their allies and counter the attacks of enemies. The supporter is sturdier than the controller, but doesn't have nearly as much offense. All supporters have signifigant healing or restorative powers to live up to their role, as well as other things they can do in battle. Supporters play an important part in group tactics and leadership, making sure their allies are supported well and working together. The cleric is a classic example of a supporter class.

A role description such as this one is much clearer, its exciting to those who want to play it, it doesn't make the supporter role sound deeming or secondary.

JohnSnow said:

The primary function of a group "leader" is to direct the others in such a way that they support one another. Interestingly, that's always been true of how play revolved around the cleric - the quintessential "Leader" class.

If the cleric is willing and able to cast healing spells, the group can stay in combat. Sometimes, against a powerful opponent, what the cleric decides to do determines what the party does. If the cleric drops a buff on the party, they're going to fight. If he beats a hasty retreat, the rest of the group follows.

It's not that they have to, but certainly in 3e, a group that tries to go toe-to-toe with a powerful opponent after their cleric has decided to split is asking for trouble. The cleric can't exactly "give orders," but he's certainly "leading by example."

He hesitates: we wait.
He buffs the party: we attack.
He pauses to heal: we cover him.
He runs away: we follow or we die.

Whatever you want to call it, mechanically, that's leading. The party does what the cleric player thinks is a good idea. Unless the team's leadership is specifically taken by another character, whose primary role is to direct how the party members support one another.

Click to expand...

Leading is 90% of the time stepping up and taking the reins and proactively directing people. The few passive leadership techniques are similiar to what you are referring to. Leading is not a class role. It is player dynamics and character concept that creates the leaders, not the class they choose.

Those actions you listed can apply to all four roles. If the striker hestates, everyone waits as he gets into position. If the striker or controller debuffs the enemy we attack. If a party member has to pause to ready a buff or heal, then we cover him. If the defender runs, then we follow or die. Those are not inclusive to the healer.

Rechan said:

"Leader" takes the bitter sting out of the word "Support".

"Support" carries the connotation of a spear carrier, a cheerleader, a medic for the other characters. A "Support" character rarely gets the glory, rarely is a hero.

Click to expand...

I"m in total agreement there.

Najo said:

Ok, I want something clear. I am not confused myself nor would I care about the roles as an advance player. The primary goal of 4e is to make the game accesible to people who do not play D&D yet, but knows someone who does. These roles are for them. Your girlfriend reads leader, and she is going to think that those classes boss people around. Then you explain to her what it means, and she now has to redefine a common term and way of percieving the word Leader. This is unnecessary and misleading to those players.

Click to expand...

Sure, the game has a few things that are defined slightly different then they would be in a non game situation. All games, I would say, to a degree have such things. Even the definition you posted has different designations when talking about different functions. The leader in music is not the same as the leader in a corporate entity. The leader in a game is not the same as either of them. Designating it as a "coordinator, or supporter," in my eyes would confuse the matter.

The importance here is that the rules, like it or not, are about tactics. (This doesn't mean that roleplaying or storytelling are unimportant. It simply means that tactics are what most require a rules set.)

Sure, maybe at first read you see it as "boss." but the sidebar is there to discourage that, and get you thinking again in tactical terms.

In tactical game terms the leader is the entity that forces another's hand. Plain and simple.

It's not a passive thing either. It's very active. Your actions cause other game elements to happen.

If the term was coordinator, enhancer, booster, supporter or something to that effect, and the description said "

Supporter: A character who heals, aids or "buffs" other characters. Supporters are often found behind or near the frontline using their powers to enhance their allies and counter the attacks of enemies. The supporter is sturdier than the controller, but doesn't have nearly as much offense. All supporters have signifigant healing or restorative powers to live up to their role, as well as other things they can do in battle. Supporters play an important part in group tactics and leadership, making sure their allies are supported well and working together. The cleric is a classic example of a supporter class.

A role description such as this one is much clearer, its exciting to those who want to play it, it doesn't make the supporter role sound deeming or secondary.

Click to expand...

It's not a demeaning thing. It's that rather then helping the fighter hit with a bonus, you are directly effecting the fighters choice. If I have the buff bonus I can hit, therefore I will attack. If I don't have the buff, I will not attack. If the cleric gets hit this round, he will be unable to heal the mage who will most likely die. Therefore I will do anything I can to protect the cleric, rather then take another action.

You are not supporting another character. You are directly effecting what choices that character can/will make.