My thoughts of Roles - from Races and Classes

The Ubbergeek said:

I disagree.

Not every players want to steal the spotlight. Somes, like me, love to be a support. A member of the team, maybe not the key one, but a fellow who bring something ot the party. Who help for victory.

And so, I want also to be able to do this.

Click to expand...

I don't think that you will not be able to do this with the leader role.

Clerics can heal - they just don't lose combat actions to focus on just doing that. They facilitate other people's healing (maximizing Second Wind? Allowing people to take a second one? I'm not sure).

Warlords facilitate other people - allowing them to make extra attacks, for instance. In one of the playtests we saw warlords giving everyone a blanket +2 to their saves.

Once in an interview long ago one designer was talking about his interview to get the job. (I don't remember who it was... maybe Perkins?) He was asked which is the most powerful class, and his response was along the lines of: "The Cleric, because you are someone what in control of the actions of the other player's characters as well."

This is what I think they mean by leader. It's not leader in the sense that you're calling the shots all the time, or people ask your permission to do anything.

It's leader in the sense that you're actions in a way dictate how the fight will play out:

I cast a spell that weakens x enemy, therefore you will most likely attack x.

I cast a spell that heals your damage, therefore you will most likely continue fighting.

I cast a spell that makes you fear people with arcane powers, therefore you most likely will not attack the wizard.

etc...

I'm guessing the biggst difference between this and the controller is that this one is more based on effecting the creature, while the controller ill control the fight by effecting the area around the creature.

The leader will directly influence the tactics of an opponent, while the controller will influence what tactics the opponent can actually bring to bear.

Rechan said:

And I think the worry that "Leader=Person who makes decisions on behalf of all the party all the time" is about as realistic as "Controller=Is in control of the party and can make them do what he wants because he has Control over them".

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. My own concerns were with the posters in these forums, who seem to be assuming that Leader role = party leader, and then attempting to justify it. I had flashbacks to Middle School AD&D.

erf_beto said:

Well, perhaps not the leader of the adventuring party, but clerics and priests are supposed to be leader of the masses, guiding people spiritualy. They could guide the party, but not necessarily through commands in battle, but rather in the moral/ethics/spiritual sense. The warlord, OTOH, is a leader of troops and warriors, therefore also fit to be the leader of an adventuring party, but he might not be the guy telling them what's right from wrong, or good from evil...

It's different kinds of leader-ship, the same way rogues and rangers are both strikers, but don't necessarily step into each other toes. I know these are party roles, but as someone already said, 'support' isnt a very nice name for a role, so putting the cleric (who IS a sort of leader) with the warlord was their best bet.

Click to expand...

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.

A good example of this is the game Team Fortress 2. 9 classes in all, what roles do they fill?

Scout - Striker (moves fast, hit and run)
Soldier - Striker/ Defender (direct assault, holds positions)
Pyro - Defender/ limited Support or Controller (protects others, removes threats)
Demoman - Support (creates zones of protection and removes close range threats, causes disorder and confusion in the enemy)
Heavy - Defender (moving wall that sucks up damage and deals out damage)
Engineer - Controller/ Support (Offers healing and creates control points and opens up movement for your team)
Doctor - Support (Healer and invulnverability)
Sniper - Striker (lethal ranged attacks and close assualt)
Spy - Controller (Hides amongst the enemy, recon, creates confusion, sabotages enemy buildings, removes threats with instant kill - this is not a striker as it take positioning, tricks and patience to make the spy hit hard)

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.

Also, I think there are people who enjoy the idea of playing a Support class. It happens in MMOs, it happens in first person shooters. It should happen in D&D.

I also think that guiding someone into the Leader role or trying to make a support class fit the leader defination is going to create issues down the road in class design.

Plain and simple, the support classes are classes that have abilities that support other party members. It is for the person who wants to be in the middle of the cordination, that wants to be the lifeline of the group, that wants to be the tactical hub, that wants to inspire the party with their song, that wants to channel magic powers out to their allies. This is the role of the Cleric, Warlord, and Bard.

kennew142 said:

I agree 100%. My own concerns were with the posters in these forums, who seem to be assuming that Leader role = party leader, and then attempting to justify it. I had flashbacks to Middle School AD&D.

Click to expand...

I understand that leader doesn't mean LEADER. I am thinking from two perspectives, 1) new players and 2) designer guidelines.

If it doesn't mean leader, than why call it leader. The name leader is confusing.

Najo said:

I understand that leader doesn't mean LEADER. I am thinking from two perspectives, 1) new players and 2) designer guidelines.

Click to expand...

Considering that Miko said above that there's going to be a BIG FAT sidebar underneath the Leader role that says "Leader, Not Boss", if newbies get confused then they just have selective reading problems.

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.

And I think the worry that "Leader=Person who makes decisions on behalf of all the party all the time" is about as realistic as "Controller=Is in control of the party and can make them do what he wants because he has Control over them".

Click to expand...

Leader on the other hand is preemptively stealing some of the glory and mislabeling the classes in that role.

Controllers control conditions in the battlefield and enemy choices. Defenders protect other party members and take damage on themselves, strikers dish out damage and hit hard, leaders support the other party members with healing and bonuses.

My point is some support classes are going to be "leader" types (i.e. the warlord), while others are going to feel wierd labelling them leaders (clerics and bards).

Najo said:

I understand that leader doesn't mean LEADER. I am thinking from two perspectives, 1) new players and 2) designer guidelines.

If it doesn't mean leader, than why call it leader. The name leader is confusing.

Click to expand...

Because Support means "can't do anything on its own."

Wolfspider said:

If by flaw you you mean the fact that humans are inherently "corruptable," then that idea also really stirred something inside me...when I read it decades ago in the works of Tolkien.

It's a good idea, and I'm glad that they're implementing it, but it's really not a new idea by a long shot.

Click to expand...

I know its not new, but it is to D&D, and that is what impressed me. It was a good choice.

Najo said:

Controllers control conditions in the battlefield and enemy choices. Defenders protect other party members and take damage on themselves, strikers dish out damage and hit hard, leaders support the other party members with healing and bonuses.

Click to expand...

And all ready, in another thread, people are arguing that defenders shouldn't defend - Fighters charge into battle and beat up monsters, not stand in front of the wizard because he's now a de-facto bodyguard. In another thread, it's been argued that wizards shouldn't be resigned to just Evokers, blowing stuff up, which is all controllers do, etc etc.

If it isn't "Leaders are being forced to be the party leader", then it's something else.

My point is some support classes are going to be "leader" types (i.e. the warlord), while others are going to feel wierd labelling them leaders (clerics and bards).

Click to expand...

And I don't really see how that's possible.