D&D 4E Discussion about a Primer on 4e terminology

[Aluvial]

1. Leader The leader role in 4e does not imply that the character leads the party (say, in the sense that Gandalf led the Fellowship of the Rings). It means a character whose abilities are mostly centred around helping his fellow party members to recover from injuries and conditions, and to perform better in combat and non-combat challenges.

Why doesn't the word leader mean leader? This and many of the other terms used are unclear and I've always thought that not using clear English was a problem. Words have specific meanings; why use the term leader if it does not imply 'leader'?

 

[FireLance]

Why doesn't the word leader mean leader? This and many of the other terms used are unclear and I've always thought that not using clear English was a problem. Words have specific meanings; why use the term leader if it does not imply 'leader'?

If I was to hazard a guess, it would be for the same reason that companies give their staff fancy titles: Wotc probably thought nobody would be interested in a "support" role unless it had a nice name.

This isn't the thread to second guess Wotc decisions, though. I'm just aiming to clear up the confusion. Mind you, there's probably a good case for a thread advising Wotc to pay more attention to terminology in 5e and to make some suggestions on what should be changed.

EDIT: The discussion posts have been spun off, so second guess away!

 

[Aldarc]

Why doesn't the word leader mean leader? This and many of the other terms used are unclear and I've always thought that not using clear English was a problem. Words have specific meanings; why use the term leader if it does not imply 'leader'?

Because many of the other more 'appropriate' terms for the role (e.g. support, buffer, healer, etc.) have negative connotations within RPGs, which just as easily turn potential players off of the classes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why doesn't the word leader mean leader? This and many of the other terms used are unclear and I've always thought that not using clear English was a problem. Words have specific meanings; why use the term leader if it does not imply 'leader'?

Try to come up with a better term that covers the range of activities performed by the characters in that role, and you'll have a good idea why. And no, 'healer" is too narrow.

If it helps any, it is also a player/character disconnect at times. In our 4E games, characters with the "leader" role are often the ones that are in the position to "direct traffic" during fights. It was pretty funny in our early games, with a Tactical Warlord (gnome!) and "Laser" Cleric (dwarf), both played by players who are not in any way tactical or leaders in combat. The cleric was more of ranged attacker with healing ability then, but the warlord is really functionally a leader in character, even at low levels. The gnome, "Um ... Go over there and kick him in the head. Now you ... got a spell ready, alright then."

It ends up being a lot like the green 2nd lieutenant with the experienced Sarge calling the real shots. So you might say that the warlord is a "leader" as long as you keep the square quotes every time.

If my tactically minded friend plays a warlord, though? He is the leader of the party in combat, no question. I suspect that the warlord being one of the two leaders in the new edition, and thus getting a lot of attention during playtesting, had a lot to do with the name.

 

[Aluvial]

There is a thread recently wher M. Cook used the term "lurker" and there was twenty or more posts here debating his meaning of the term. Was it the actual creature named the lurker (aptly named) or was it an "ambusher?" I concede that there may not be a correct term for the role that the "leader" character is supposed to fill but then again do we need to have those roles defined at all? It makes more sense to not try and define party roles with one term. If the game designers wanted to have a discussion about roles that by their essence have to be defined by more than one word, then they should include a section, a party role primer, to explain the concept.

I think the party role words need to better clarified. I realize that this is a thread that is for me. I DM a 3.675 edition of the game now, but have played since 1st ed. I only tried 4th Ed. four times. I own the core books along with some accessory material but there I always thought that the overuse of inaccurate terminology hampered the new version of the game.

I would actually like to see this thread finished with definitions of the other party roles and those of the creatures. The definition of "the leader" was actually the first time I understood the role.

Aluvial

 

[LurkAway]

Perhaps 4e could have at least used the capitalization convention ("The Warlord is a Martial Leader") and use lower case when referring to in-game archetypes. Also, Bloodied, Encounter, Surge, etc. That's the worst case scenario anyway, if they couldn't find terminology that shied away from cognitive dissonance

 

[Aldarc]

Perhaps 4e could have at least used the capitalization convention ("The Warlord is a Martial Leader") and use lower case when referring to in-game archetypes. Also, Bloodied, Encounter, Surge, etc. That's the worst case scenario anyway, if they couldn't find terminology that shied away from cognitive dissonance

Could've, should've, would've, but it's of little significance. What matters is what these terms do mean for 4E so that when having discussions of 4E in the context of 5E, people have clear ideas of how the terms are being used, such that there is a minimizing of potential misunderstandings.

 

[Kingreaper]

Okay, the names make sense to some degree. Thanks for posting them here. This is where I feel that the game has gone too far though.

Let me ask this, are there specific game rules that work with these "abstract" role names? For instance, are there any instances of a power or ritual that specifically deals or benefits a specific roll?

There are a few feats, paragon paths, and epic destinies that require that you have a class with a particular role.

However, you can gain a role simply by multiclassing into a class with that role.

Ie. if I'm a wizard, who wants to become more defendery, I can multiclass into Swordmage, and take a defender-only paragon path.

 

[Storminator]

Okay, the names make sense to some degree. Thanks for posting them here. This is where I feel that the game has gone too far though.

Let me ask this, are there specific game rules that work with these "abstract" role names? For instance, are there any instances of a power or ritual that specifically deals or benefits a specific roll? If so, then the abstract naming convention for that character or creature (leader, controller, or lurker for example) then falls into the trap of over-design because then you are pigeon- holed into that role because their are specific game rules that cover that role. The first I can really think of is the minion. What other rules might be specific to a certain role?

As far as I know there are no powers (etc.) that directly address role. Nothing says "all strikers do +2 damage in your aura".

PS

 

[thedungeondelver]

...sort of.

There's one paragraph in every edition of D&D that says this.[SIZE=-2][/SIZE]

It isn't "one paragraph" in AD&D - it's a page and a half in the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE.