WotC_Shoe on leaderless parties

This Gleemax post from WotC_Shoe has a bit on the 4e parties he is running:

I have an interesting dichotomy of groups. My monthly group, what meets the first weekend of each month, is much more tactically "savvy" - not just in combats, but also in group composition, trying to make sure that all the bases are covered, and all the roles are filled. My (purportedly) weekly group is a bit more idiosyncratic, as each player makes up his own mind of character design without much regard to what the other PCs play.

In the weekend group, I've got a Warlord, a Paladin, a Fighter, a Cleric, a Rogue, and a Wizard - (however, the rogue was a relatively recent addition). They've got pretty good synergy with two defenders and two leaders in the group: the defenders work together and coordinate their attacks and their control effects, while two leaders means that the group heals much more efficiently during combats. Even without the striker power of the rogue, they got along pretty well through the low levels.

The weekly group, on the other hand, adventures without a leader. Fighter, wizard, rogue, warlock, and ranger. With the extra damage afforded by the strikers of the group, they have the ability to end fights pretty quickly, but in a prolonged fight (like if they miss their attacks in consecutive rounds) they are more likely to start testing the death and dying rules, since they don't have the extra healing oomph of a leader. That will change somewhat if we decide to implement potion drinking as a minor action, but even then the healing will still be less efficient (or at least much more expensive) than the boost granted by having a leader PC. With potion drinking a standard action, its typically more tactically sound to spend your action fighting, instead of using your action to get hit points that you might lose again before your next turn due to damage.

At any rate, despite the occasional negative hit point totals accrued by the weekly group, they are still able to achieve a reasonable "day's" worth of adventuring before they need to stop for an extended rest. At least I think they are. I get a feeling that the weekend group can last an extra encounter or two. Now that the rules have settled down a bit, I'll be keeping track of the number of rounds in each fight and the number of (combat)encounters in a "day", and attempt to confirm my hypothesis.

And this post from Jennifer Clarke Wilkes may have a hint on feat progression if the game in question is 4e. Or not:
Random quote heard at my gaming table over the weekend. Sean (creating his 10th-level character): I've got six feats! That's two yards!" Chris: "I cannot fathom your sense of humor."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Random quote heard at my gaming table over the weekend. Sean (creating his 10th-level character): I've got six feats! That's two yards!" Chris: "I cannot fathom your sense of humor."

Seems in line with my prediction that you get one at first level and every even level.
 

The leader bit by Shoe makes sense. You can play without a cleric/warlord, but you won't last as long as a balanced group that uses one or more.

And I agree with Sphyre on the feat progression.
 

I thought the interesting bit from the blog is that they're considering changing drinking a potion to a minor action instead of a standard action.
 

I'm down with potion drinking as a minor action. You should be able to chug a potion and still get a swing off with your sword or a blast from your wand or something.

But mostly, I like it as a DM. It means my NPC bad guys can drink and still keep fighting! :]
 



JoelF said:
I thought the interesting bit from the blog is that they're considering changing drinking a potion to a minor action instead of a standard action.

Drinking potions as a minor action makes the game less like an RPG, and more like .....

a) a minis game
b) a ccg
c) a video game
d) anime

I'm not sure which talking point we'll see in this thread, but it will likely be one of the above.

BTW, I like the idea of drinking potions as less than a standard action. I could go for move or minor - anything is better than a standard action IMO.
 

I dunno. Can you:
a)Fetch a bottle from your ludicrously overstuffed backpack.
b)Open it. (Remember it's got to be stoppered ppretty well, or you've got a traveling cloak and some iron rations which had all their wounds lightly cured)
c)Guzzle it.

In three seconds, while defending yourself against a rampaging orc? While holding a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other? (Or a 2-handed weapon, or an 'implement'?)

If it were me designing the game, it would be a full-round action. Which is why I don't get to design games. :)

I think implementing drinking a potion as a minor action would be ripping off...uh...college drinking games, I guess.

(I could see something like 'a minor action if not currently threatened, or, if threatened, at the players choice, either a full-round action with no AOO or a move action with AOO')

On a happier note, it's a good sign that a Leaderless game is at least possible, if not necessarily easy. It's good to know the game isn't designed so tightly around the roles that you can't begin the instance until you've found a Cleric LFG.
 


Remove ads

Top