Classes need to be ready to go from the beginning

[TheArcane]

Indeed, that seems to be one of the things that are addressed in 4E. Several of the playtest examples show the "leader" classes supporting their party while being active in the fight.

Yes, In one of the quotes a cleric strikes a target, creating a surge of healing energy, or something of that sort.
The concept is nice, but the implementation hinted in this quote sounds not so great to me. It's kind of forced - the cleric should be able to heal along with actively participating in the fight, but just making every hit heal someone? Doesn't make much sense to me, as far as anything can make sense in a fantasy game. A cleric is a cleric after all, so fighting should come second to him, and healing should most definitely not be tied to hurting someone else, except maybe for smiting demons and stuff. I hope this is not some permanent ability, maybe a unique spell.
I'd suggest having healing spells or abilities that create an aura of healing around the cleric, so he can cast once, and proceed doing other things while the aura heals his comrades. For balance, it should be weaker than the plain old healing spells, but still be a viable alternative.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'd consider that more leadership. That looks like it could be fun.

My face-to-face group never has any clerics, unless we can sucker someone into it This is because we start at low levels, so everyone goes for somebody who can dish out some damage, rather than the low level cleric, who, at low levels, can't do anything. They're outfought by the fighter, outspelled by the wizard (who usually ends up plinking away with his crossbow), and generally are regarded as walking band-aids.

So happy the wizard is getting at-will and per encounter attacks. Crossbows suck!

Maybe that is in fact what they are going for in D&D 4 if they speak of the "Leader" role - yes, it is support, but it's not just following a fixed list of things to do?

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Maybe you should play First Person Shooters instead of DnD. It seems you have an absolute distaste for the cooperative part of it.

Cheers.

Work that .sig!

 

[sunmaster]

I don't know what the real problem with a Hunter class is.

When I play a Hunter then I play this PC because he is a hunter: someone who knows the difference between eat this and you die and eat this and you will heal your sickness, someone who can tell where North and South is in a forest, someone who can get food for starving people in many territories and a character who is able to support himself if needed. Then there could be (setting based) alliances with some nobility because hunters (in medieval times) worked for them.

I read this thread with some "fear": All you discuss are meta-gaming, combat rules influencing stuff that don't matters one inch.

What is better? A min-maxed fighter who cannot get their friends out from the woods or a heroic hunter who will find shelter for the friends, search the path out from the woods and after that just hunt some animals to feed them? A heroic character who stands up for his friends ( even without some stupid bonuses to this and that).

Are you all really play classes for their bonusses on the character sheets or are you playing the classes for their individual "bonusses" which they can give to the story, adventure, the other characters and so on?

:\

 

[Doug McCrae]

I like playing the support role, it's fun for me, and it doesn't even have to be active support, the spell/ability decision making is enough. The problem I currently have with clerics and bards is I dislike having to be religious and I dislike being a singer/musician, so I don't play either class. Warlord is looking like it could be good for me.

MerricB, you seemed to have two separate problems in the Iron Heroes game:
1) The hunter class, or your particular hunter, is underpowered. The bonuses provided are far too small.
2) You don't like playing the support role.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Instead, imo, leaders should also gain some abilities that do something else than buffing, healing and helping others. And I'm sure they will.

Something I would like to see...

Allow the Leader classes to issue commands to their allies (the other PCs). For example:

Leader: Hey Fighter, attack that Orc over there.
Fighter: Ok!

Now, if they listen to the orders of the leader, they get a benefit (+1 to hit or equivalent) for doing so. They can still choose to ignore the orders (for this Chaotics out there), but won't gain any benefit for doing so. Actually, maybe it would be fun(ny) if Chaotic alignments actually got a bonus for NOT listening to their Leader

 

[Jack99]

Only 7 posts after the OP to say "you don't know how to play the game right"? Not bad at all. Remarkably unhelpful and not contributing to the conversation at all, but not bad.

I never said he didnt know how to play the game. But like it or not, DnD is a cooperative game, built around groups. Its not made for sologames, or single play. Sure, its possible, with a decent DM and such, but it is made for groups.

Now, part of being in a group is working together and helping each other out. From the OP's post, and comments like "I can do something better now, watch me roar" suggested to me that maybe he would have more fun playing other games.

Therefore, I think it was helpful. Now, re-reading his post, his experience does sound horrible, but

I wasn't the best archer (I wasn't even close), I had the worst hit points, the worst AC, and the other PCs were pretty much better in melee than me.

Now I must admit that I dont play IH, but how is this possible? How many characters were in that party? What classes were they? Is the hunter class the only reason your character was mediocre or was it maybe the build?

Anyway, I guess my overall point is that I strongly disagree with the OP. Not all classes need to be the best at something. If you want to be the best at something, pick the class that is, but leave the option of playing the support classes to those who wish to do so.

 

[Driddle]

I could ignore 1 point of cover AC/round - and give my friends the same bonus. Oh, and get this... I could spend an entire round making a DC 10 Intelligence check to gain a token that I could spend later in the combat to give a couple of combatants +4 to flanking instead of +2. ...

The other players were gaining tokens to help them be more effective in combat. Them, not the rest of the party.

... casting bless or cure light wounds isn't fun. It's occasionally effective, but giving a bonus to all your friends isn't as fun as, say, casting righteous might on yourself. Personal spells say, "I can do something better now, watch me roar!"

Consider if bless was "each ally gets +1 to hit, you get +2 to hit", would that make it a more fun spell? I think it would.

I hear ya. Selfless people get on my nerves, too. All that "I want to help YOU" baloney, like we're supposed to believe they enjoy supporting others instead of grabbing glory for themselves. Yeesh. :\ Kinda icky when you think about it.

 

[Jer]

Anyway, I guess my overall point is that I strongly disagree with the OP. Not all classes need to be the best at something. If you want to be the best at something, pick the class that is, but leave the option of playing the support classes to those who wish to do so.

Read Merric's description again - especially this bit:

My special abilities? I could ignore 1 point of cover AC/round - and give my friends the same bonus. Oh, and get this... I could spend an entire round making a DC 10 Intelligence check to gain a token that I could spend later in the combat to give a couple of combatants +4 to flanking instead of +2. That is, if I made the check. I had a 16 Int, so 30% of the time I'd just stand there doing absolutely nothing in the round.

The problem isn't that he's playing a support class. The problem is that the support class that he's playing is BORING. He can give a pitiful bonus to his allies, or he can stand around and make an int check to see if he can give a flanking bonus to his ally - but if he does that he can't do anything else that round. Both his active and his passive support involve him standing around not doing much. That's BORING. And it sounds like the other players at 1st level had far more interesting things to do in comparison. At least when I play a "support cleric" I get to run around the battlefield smacking people with cure spells and doing something instead of just standing back letting everyone else have the fun in the combat.

Also, I 100% disagree with the assertion that not every class should be "best" at something. If you can't point to a class and say "this class does X better than any other class" then there's no reason for that class to exist. X could be anything - it doesn't have to necessarily be combat related - but if you end up building a class that's "second best" at everything it does, that's a strong indication that you need to go back and see if maybe the concept that the class is trying to model might not be better off as a rebuild of an already existing class. (This is one of the problems with the existing Bard class - among the many, many problems the existing bard class has).

 

[Driddle]

If you can't point to a class and say "this class does X better than any other class" then there's no reason for that class to exist. ... If you end up building a class that's "second best" at everything it does, that's a strong indication that you need to go back and see if maybe the concept that the class is trying to model might not be better off as a rebuild of an already existing class.

I always thought that being "second best at everything" was one way of doing something better than any other class. ... All those other classes? Specialists. One-trick ponies. The "second best at everything" guy? Flexible. Has the potential to step up and take on any task anywhere. Ad-lib a solution and get the job done.

I like that sort of guy. He's taking care of all the piddly crap the superstars don't want to mess with because they're looking for the next opportunity to shine or whine.