Do we need a Leader?
- Thread starter Havrik Stoneskimmer
- Start date
My 4e Wilderlands campaign seems to work fine with a bunch of Strikers & a Defender. There are valuable synergies to the roles but I don't think you really need a Leader, or any particular role, in 4e. Also if combat length is a concern, Leaders & Controllers both tend to slow down combat. Strikers both deal lots of damage and tend to have brief turns, so lots of them helps combat fly by.
Edit: I don't use tons of nerf-monsters with strong control effects; in particular not spam daze/stun/dominate.
Edit: I don't use tons of nerf-monsters with strong control effects; in particular not spam daze/stun/dominate.
Last edited:
wlmartin
Explorer
A Healer doesnt serve the same purpose (aka Healbot) that previous editions have required. Now you have more options to heal yourself (Second Wind and between encounter rests) so the healer in a group can be swapped out for any other type of character as long as the group has a method to get insta-heals that dont rely on standard actions (a healing potion does a good job here)
The purpose of a leader in D&D is less about JUST HEALING and more about support. They contribute in one of 3 ways
1 : Extra AC/DR that adds up to a missed hit which can be more valuable than a heal in most cases
2 : Extra To-Hit/Damage that adds up to a monster dropping say 1 round quicker and not being able to hit again, again another missed hit
3 : Moving monsters or players around to provide a tactical situations
It is surprising how much Leaders are overlooked but when you play without you them you notice your HPs sink more and there are some people that say "Well, my healer never actually healed me much... but now he is gone I need it more, that is just a weird coincidence"
It is not a coincidence it is just that you don't notice the Saving Throws to avoid OG damage you get from him, the +2 to damage resistance, the +2 to damage on your next hit... once you add those up it amounts to a great deal of damage you don't suffer.
To that end, I think that if a group has at least 2 defenders (or 1 defender and 1 well armed striker) and 2 leaders, the group can survive pretty much anything... Leaders arent the opt in/opt out characters, they are built to provide MASSIVE support but should only be played by people who are more interested in being supportive as your chances to hit things are limited.
Summary
Leaders = Damage Mitigation and without them you need a sure fire way to buff your PCs and provide them healing somehow... you wont realize why at first but when you cut a leader out the party starts losing more and it isnt just the heals, its the buffs too!
Paladin is able to grant saves every combat through class feature so that helps some. Additionally, I don't use stun very much mainly because it just sucks for the players (this is true with or without a leader). Its one thing when Monster C gets stunned (the DM still has 4 other monsters running around), but the player loses all her actions when she is stunned.
Immobilized? My players usually just teleport, same with grabbed. Dazed certainly slows them down some, but not a whole lot. Even with none of them being Str-based they have pretty good basic melee attacks due to Melee Training and the like.
As for long? Well, two strikers (ranger and avenger) two defenders, and an invoker that often deals striker-light damage tends to make things drop quickly. Rain of Blood for instance can make short work of a lot a monsters at once while also counteracting the debuffs on the party and can be used every encounter. Combine it once a day with Wrath of the Gods and it gets really ugly really quick.
Distant advantage also means that the ranger is usually attacking with CA as is the Invoker much of the time and three melee characters also keeps them in flanking most of the time.
You are right though that if I really wanted to punish them for not having a leader AND if they didn't want to adapt to the fact that they didn't have a leader and instead made character choices as if somebody else had that covered, then yeah it might be really bad. Of course, I also think a good DM takes a look at his or her party and tries to tailor adventures around the party. Sometimes that means hitting their weaknesses. Sometimes it means playing to their strengths. Sometimes a player has to sacrifice some aspects of her character for the good of the party (I know the swordmage in our group has said at times that he would spec his character differently if we had a dedicated leader for instance).
At any rate, my players do a good job of working together as a team. They know each other's characters and understand how they operate. They also know that occasionally they need to use an AP to second wind, or make a heal check rather than just making a second attack which potentially slows it down a little (but not a lot when you compare it to the alternative of allowing the ongoing damage to continue, or allowing the PC to fall unconscious, or to remain dazed/immobilized/etc.
I will acknowledge however, that as we have only made it through the first 3 levels (a couple of encounters to go before 14) of paragon that this may get worse. But as I said, I'm not a big fan of stuns and dominates anyway (even if there were a dedicated leader) as I tend to find that those types of effects only serve to prolong the fight while taking a lot of fun away from the players. Though ironically, the last time I dominated a character (the ranger) she was granted a save, and made it, before her turn came up in the initiative order.
/shrug
UnknownAtThisTime
First Post
Optimally, of course not: "Vee MUST have zee healer to properly play zee game in zee optimal combat manner!"
So, if you or the players are optimizers, must remain balanced in each role, and value mechanics over story, then it will be a tough slog.
OTOH .... if you eschew optimization, incorporate the lack of a healer as a sort of story line even, create encounters that are slightly tweaked to this party, and adjudicate some DM decisions differently, I see no problem with running leaderless.
Interestingly, and totally IMO, I find that the leader role contributes to slow combat more than any other. The in combat buffs, healsm defenses, etc not ponly take time, but are most likely to be applied incorrectly.
UnknownAtThisTime
First Post
See my post above*. You just might find the opposite occurs, especially depending on the DM's monster tactics.
(*Where I generally contend that leaderless combat rounds themselves are quicker than leaderfull combat rounds)
Optimisation has absolutely zero to do with this debate and it's ridiculous to even bring it up.
If you are 100% running a game to the letter of the rules, then you WILL find combats take longer and are more difficult without a leader. That is because the system is designed to expect a balanced party.
In fact, optimisation makes leaders LESS required than more.
So in one sentence you say that the system only requires leaders when players optimise, and in this one you say that you have to change the system to accommodate a leaderless party. Which one is it?
That assertion is so patently absurd that I can only contend that you're trolling. As such, this post will be my last that addresses anything you post in this thread.
Mod Edit: See my post below. This is kinda rude. ~Umbran
A leader not only counters enemy debuffs which otherwise would slow down combats, but they provide their own consistent level of damage, provide buffs to party members to enhance their probability of hitting and damage output, as well as making sure characters don't fall and thus stop contributing to a combat encounter, but they also often offer out of turn attacks and other actions which bypass the regular action economy, thus again speeding up play.
Last edited by a moderator:
UnknownAtThisTime
First Post
Well Kzach, I don't think I have ever been accused of trolling before, but there is a first time for everything I suppose. 
I guess we have a difference of opinion.
Cheers.
I guess we have a difference of opinion.
Cheers.
Speeding up play and shortening the number of rounds a combat takes are not necessarily the same thing. In my experience, out of turn attacks, interrupts, reactions, etc., actually slow down play, while shortening the number of rounds.
Take for instance:
DM: Does 26 hit your AC?
Invoker: *sigh* Yes, just hits even with the bonus from the cleric.
DM: Okay, you take 24 points of fire damage.
Ranger: Wait! I want to Disrupting Strike that! *rolls* Uhh, lets see that would be a 24?
DM: That misses.
Ranger: Shoot, well uh, Elven Accuracy. *rolls* Dang! 22.
DM: Sorry, still misses.
Avenger: Wait, go ahead a reroll that since he's my Oath of Enmity.
Ranger: Sweet! *rolls* Woot! 28 will hit I'm sure! That will do 18 points of damage, oh wait, forgot my Quarry damage *rolls* that's another 6 points.
vs.
DM: Does 26 hit your AC?
Invoker: *sigh* Yes, just hits.
DM: Okay, take 24 points of fire damage.
Both versions have the same result essentially (24 points of damage) but one took a lot longer to get to while taking up the same amount of "game world" time. Defensive buffs/debuffs (i.e. buffing PC defenses and debuffing enemy attacks) do slow down combats because the PCs take less damage. Offensive buffs/debuffs (buffing PC attacks and debuffing enemy defenses) speed up combat by making the monsters easier to kill. Thing is, its not always guaranteed that one or both of those will be in place. Sometimes its better for the defensive buffs to be used, sometimes its better to go offensive.
Here's the thing though, combats without a leader can absolutely be very quick, it just might not be in the party's favor. Take a party of five strikers. They will deal a ton of damage in a hurry, but will also be killed in a hurry. Either way, its likely that the fight will be over relatively quickly.
Now a party with five shielding swordmages of course will have very long drawn out fights.
Obviously both of those are extremes. The point is though two people in this thread have experienced games without a leader and not noticed a drawing out of combat. I also believe that PCat's game has had long periods without a leader class and I don't recall them having too many problems. I won't dispute that you may have had different experiences, but don't assume that your experiences are the only correct ones and that everyone else must be lying if they claim to have had a different experience.
My question for you (and I don't mean this to be snarky, its an honest question) is do you consider your party and your players when designing your adventures? Your statements about strict rules as written seems to indicate that you design without taking the party/players into consideration. There's nothing wrong with this approach, but its also not a common approach in my opinion. Even so though, I haven't had to adjust much in my campaign that has been largely leaderless. The only changes I made were to healing potions to make them a little closer to what a leader would do (though not nearly as good). I don't use stun/dominate a lot but then, I wouldn't use them a lot even if the party did have one or more leader types. I just don't think they make for fun play in my opinion.
Similar Threads
