My thoughts of Roles - from Races and Classes

I have been pondering this issue for a while. I really dislike the name leader as a party role, because it implies that the rest of the party has to do what that character says. Does anyone remember the idea of the party leader from AD&D? I have been unable to come up with a better name, and have decided that I will have to live with it. I don't know, maybe we'll call it tactician in our games.

I like the name "leader," and if its implemented the way I think it will be, I think its an appropriate name.

Right now we don't have a ton of info on how a cleric leads. But we've got good info on how a warlord leads. We have two known warlord abilities, and we have the White Raven school in Tome of Battle as a model.

Abilities like "Feather Me Yon Oaf" are, in my mind, most certainly a leader type ability. Sure, no one HAS to listen. But it lets the warlord issue a command ("shoot that guy!"), and gives his allies a noticeable mechanical advantage if they choose to follow that command. They can elect not to follow, if perhaps they have better things to do, or don't want to end up holding a ranged weapon at the end of the warlord's turn, but they now have incentive to do what the warlord commands.

Cadfan said:

I like the name "leader," and if its implemented the way I think it will be, I think its an appropriate name.

Right now we don't have a ton of info on how a cleric leads. But we've got good info on how a warlord leads. We have two known warlord abilities, and we have the White Raven school in Tome of Battle as a model.

Abilities like "Feather Me Yon Oaf" are, in my mind, most certainly a leader type ability. Sure, no one HAS to listen. But it lets the warlord issue a command ("shoot that guy!"), and gives his allies a noticeable mechanical advantage if they choose to follow that command. They can elect not to follow, if perhaps they have better things to do, or don't want to end up holding a ranged weapon at the end of the warlord's turn, but they now have incentive to do what the warlord commands.

Click to expand...

I just notice, this is also a cool thing for non-fantasy-genre games - I mean, what's the purpose of a bridge commander in a Sci-Fi Space-Battles game, if there are also gunners, engineers, pilot and science officers around? As a "Leader" he can do things to improve what these guys do - and if they follow his lead, they're being even more effective!

(By the way: How can we transfer the other roles into a typical "combat bridge" scenario - Picard is the leader, but who's the defender, the striker or the controller?)

Not really having a problem with it, or any of the roles, really. I think the fear that is being expressed here is as follows:

"Will the player of the "leader" character feel it is his duty to run the group?"

I'm thinking that, as usual, bossy players don't need an excuse to be bossy. If the other players, and DM make it clear that their role is tactical, and not totalitarian, there isn't going to be a problem. Heck, it probably won't even go this far. Bossy people remain bossy regardless. Non bossy people won't be an issue with it.

I think its large a semantics issue here, and we're focusing on minutia (admittedly because WotC isn't giving us much else to ponder, but . . . .). I think the roles are fine and give good guidlines for what the class excels at. I am pretty confident that it is not a requirement, nor do i think that "this class gets to tell others what to do" will be anywhere in the fluff for these leader classes.

Are people that chaotic here that they buck the very possibility of a leader in a group? Even if its not something that HAS to be done? Heck, sometimes its even a good idea. In most of the groups I've played in, one player gravitates to the leader role. So if they pick, say a warlord or cleric, is there a problem with that? Do people really, seriously think the leader is going to have some magical in game compulsion over other players? Seriously?

Sorry, maybe i'm not getting the issue here, not meaning to be brusque about the whole thing, but why is it such a terrible thing, really?

In my experience leaders are people who place others (through suggestions, commands, pleading, what have you) in situations where they can use their strengths and who inspire others when the chips are down. You can call this leading or you can call this support, but IMO "to lead" has a much more positive, active, and dynamic spin than "to support."

Right IMO now the quintessential leader type in D&D is Bruenor Battlehammer from RA Salvatore's Drizzt novels. He certainly has a few levels of Warlord, and while he is respected and is actually a king, among his circle of friends he's not really too overbearing (for a dwarf).

In any case, I think that characters in the Leader role will eventually be leaders of the party because players who are natural leaders (or who want to be) in real life will gravitate toward them.

It's clear to me that the name "Leader" is intended to sound more proactive than calling it "Support". It isn't intended to mean a PC of one of the leader classes can issue orders, and certainly won't enforce any obedience of them. On the other hand, adding bonuses to particular useful actions is a practical incentiive.

On its own this would only be a token gesture. However, the real changes in combo abilities (attack and heal/buff at the same time) should help remove the stigma of the role.

Also the increase in enemy numbers of the typical encounter will require every PC to fight, which is by and large a good thing.

Najo said:

2) Leaders don't always lead: Clerics are not really the party leader and their function is not to direct the other members. Likewise, the warlord (who is mislabeled to) is intended to coordinate and support the rest of the group. He takes on the 3.5 bard's role to a degree.
.

Click to expand...

Dunno, but there's ample of evidence and background for religious figures taking the lead. Similarly, many Roleplaying games closely associate the priestly classes with leadership (Exalted comes to mind). Strenght of faith, conviction of doing "the right thing", etc.. all add up to make a character a natural "leader".

The "support-role" you'd like on the label to me is easily the most annying, persistent and aggravating side-effect of D&D mechanics to date. Clerics should not be support. Never. But are (or have been so far) pressed into this role through the healing mechanics. If they manage to change that, that'll be a big plus and not naming the role "support" is a first step.

Take out the healing (the way it was handled so far) and bring back the religious with the cleric! And for those who don't like religious leaders in their group, there's the warlord to default to now. Makes all sense IMO

I think traditional support is going away with 4e. Spending actions to buff party members and heal won't be nearly as common as it is right now (re: cure on successful hit). Calling them Support classes would negatively impact their first impression with people for no reason. Yes, their support is still very important, but it looks like its a different breed of support than we're used to. An active support that is more interesting for the majority to play.

Midknightsun said:

"Will the player of the "leader" character feel it is his duty to run the group?"

Click to expand...

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.

Najo said:

Support classes are the classes that buff, remove negative effects, heal, use their actions to aid or guide other party members. They also coordinate group activity and have a flexiblility to change from frontline to behind the lines role.

Click to expand...

I think you've actually said the reason they're called "Leader" right there. The Leader is the guy whose class abilities let him tell the other characters "Okay, fighter, move behind that Yuan-Ti so I can use my class ability that gives you an extra attack on an enemy you're flanking." In combat, the other characters are mostly just doing their own thing; the leader has abilities that care where everyone is positioned, and so naturally falls into the role of deciding the party's overall strategy for the battle.