Changing the meaning of Leaders & Solos

[Kzach]

Fourth edition, for me, has been about exploring the options available in new mechanics and the exception-based design sphere. I believe this has also been the process of the designers. In a lot of instances we've seen things evolve and change, sometimes quite drastically, as initial concepts didn't pan out or were refined. The Controller role springs to mind as a prime example, but so too does the nature of Leaders & Solos.

The way Leader currently works is as a sub-division within other roles. This has never sat well with me because there's no means to determine the increase in power of a "leader" and it's just, IMO, sloppy design. If there is going to be a genuine leader creature, then it should be a genuine leader.

I'd like to see these concepts redefined, either for 4e or 5e or whatever.

A Leader should be like what a solo is today. It's a monster that is extremely tough, a boss, but in reality most solos need a cadre of minions to make them a true encounter. And so you get the Leader role, redefined.

In order to compensate for this oversight, solos in 4e have a bit of a split-personality. Some require extra additions in order to be a true encounter whilst others have been designed as genuine solo encounters. This division should be redesigned so that all solos are genuine solo encounters.

 

[the Jester]

What about the raving noble who can barely fight but inspires his allies? Not a solo, definitely a leader.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I can certainly understand why the Leader seems a bit off-putting, since it is like you say... a sub-division within the monster roles. I do think however, that it's because it's the only sub-division at this point in time that it makes it seem out of place. Had there been more sub-divisions available to layer on top of the monster roles (or at the very least had the monster Templates been featured much more prominently in monster design) the Leader would possibly not seem quite as odd.

The one thing I will say about the Leader (and why I think it actually has a place as a sub-division) is that the purpose it serves is to give your Big Bad Evil Guy the powers to buff and heal his minions ON TOP of being his own monster with his own power to attack and be a worthwhile foe.

Of all the monster roles... it makes the most sense that it's the guy in charge who would buff his underlings. However, if the Leader became its own monster role (like lurker, skirmisher, brute etc.)... its power would probably be on par with the Leader PC role... meaning it was not high in defenses, or high in damage, or stealthy, or controlling or whatnot. You'd kind of be forced to have all your BBEGs be the equivalent of clerics or warlords. And I don't think that's what most people would want to have.

I think most would want a BBEG who is a massive and deadly opponent in his own right, as well as be able to make his underlings more powerful. And thus layering Leader abilities (which let's be honest... usually is only like a single buff power and a heal) on top of another role works in that regard.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think I see where you're coming from, Kzach. I write most of the monsters I use; I've written my own monster-writing guide to help me.

And it is weird to have this one tack-on role for monsters, especially since it's a full-blown role for PCs. From a design standpoint, it just encourages DM writers to power game. Not power game in the way players do, because there are no hard and fast monster-writing rules. But if being a monster leader doesn't add to its XP value, or exclude other options...well, why shouldn't I slap a couple extra buff powers on all my monsters and call them all 'leaders'?

There's an argument to be made that 'Well, some monsters are just better than others,' but that doesn't sit right with me. Extra powers/traits should always carry a cost, even if monster-writing is basically DM fiat at the end of the day. The point of all these 4e roles, and levels, and charts is to create a set of reasonable guidelines. If a DM wants to ignore those guidelines, that's fine, but I don't like sacrificing the guidelines entirely for 'some monsters are just better than others.'

Whew, that turned out longer than I intended, and kinda ranty. Anyway, to sum up the rest of my thoughts: as it happens I recently did write a leader role into my monster guide. Though it's not a replacement for the solo caste; I've already beefed up my solos' ability to actually fight solo. I wrote my leader role mostly to create NPC analogs of PC leaders.

 

[Kzach]

Of all the monster roles... it makes the most sense that it's the guy in charge who would buff his underlings. However, if the Leader became its own monster role (like lurker, skirmisher, brute etc.)... its power would probably be on par with the Leader PC role... meaning it was not high in defenses, or high in damage, or stealthy, or controlling or whatnot. You'd kind of be forced to have all your BBEGs be the equivalent of clerics or warlords. And I don't think that's what most people would want to have.

I really don't see the logic in this argument.

If this hasn't happened already, I don't see why it would suddenly occur just because leader became it's own role. All it's really doing is making weak solos more likely to be paired with underlings and clarifying the definition of the roles.

As for maintaining leader status for lesser creature strengths, I don't really see a need or a reason for it. Sure the 'boss' might not be a great spellcaster or warrior, but if he hasn't got those powers then why does it justify him having a buff to others? On the one hand you're saying he's weak, but on the other you're then compensating by giving him a power he doesn't necessarily need or by logical rights, should even have. Being inspiring or threatening or whatever, requires having the power to back it up.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'll confess that I'm not understanding what you're trying to get at Kzach. Comprehension failure on my part. Mainly in your first two paragraphs.

But your third paragraph here...

As for maintaining leader status for lesser creature strengths, I don't really see a need or a reason for it. Sure the 'boss' might not be a great spellcaster or warrior, but if he hasn't got those powers then why does it justify him having a buff to others? On the one hand you're saying he's weak, but on the other you're then compensating by giving him a power he doesn't necessarily need or by logical rights, should even have. Being inspiring or threatening or whatever, requires having the power to back it up.

...I think you're wondering why I'm giving Leader bonuses to weak creatures? Or am I not understanding you right in this paragraph either?

Because my point was that making Leader an actual monster role rather than an add-on to the other roles would more likely result in weaker boss creatures... which I was saying was a bad thing.

A Soldier or Controller Elite or Solo who also gets some buff and heal powers makes the Soldier or Controller even better, and more boss-like (since in my opinion it makes the most sense that the boss can make his underlings stronger in addition to being able to kick ass himself.) Whereas the Leader monster role by itself results in a boss who just has leader abilities and isn't as impressive (because they, like the cleric or warlord, wouldn't strike as much fear as defenders or strikers usually do.)

 

[the Jester]

As for maintaining leader status for lesser creature strengths, I don't really see a need or a reason for it. Sure the 'boss' might not be a great spellcaster or warrior, but if he hasn't got those powers then why does it justify him having a buff to others? On the one hand you're saying he's weak, but on the other you're then compensating by giving him a power he doesn't necessarily need or by logical rights, should even have. Being inspiring or threatening or whatever, requires having the power to back it up.

So an npc party's cleric or warlord or shaman should automatically be elite?

I disagree. I see elite and solo monsters as more powerful, while leaders are good at buffing allies. There is no reason to conflate the two imho. This seems like a change for the sake of change.

That said, play how you want to play.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If anything, I think Solo (and even Elite) Leaders don't make all that much sense, since they usually can't be paired with enough creatures to "lead".

The Leader seems to be a role that is to help the DM decide how to use the monster. (Which is really what all roles do. The guidelines for monster creation are to create monsters that actually befit that role). What is lacking is a set of guideline of what constitutes leader powers.