UnknownAtThisTime
First Post
Thanks Riastlin. Perhaps you make the point better than I.
Do we need a Leader?
- Thread starter Havrik Stoneskimmer
- Start date
Thanks Riastlin. Perhaps you make the point better than I.
Dude, arguments of the form, "I don't believe you, so therefore you are actively being a jerk," are pretty much non-starters. How about you don't get accusatory with folks who are otherwise being civil, hm?
No, they don't have the same result.
Firstly, none of those examples were from leader classes which makes the entirety of the argument suspect, but let's ignore that for the moment.
In your own example, the ranger added 24 points of damage to the equation and most likely prevented the 24 points of damage done to the invoker. If you recall, the Disruptive Strike power adds a penalty to the triggering targets attack roll for the triggering attack, and given the substantiveness of the bonus, it's highly likely to prevent the attack from doing damage. That and you said it only just hit the Invoker
Then there's the fact that without the 'cleric' in your example, the invoker wouldn't have a bonus to his defence in the first place, and so would be getting hit more often, resulting in a higher likelihood of the character being taken out of the combat, resulting in less damage, less effects and more combat rounds to finish the encounter.
The extra damage of the ranger will also result in an enemy dying sooner. The sooner it dies, the sooner everyone can focus on another enemy, and thus the sooner the combat is over.
You cite that we have different experiences as a reasoning behind why we're approaching this differently. However I'm not only drawing from experience. When asking questions like the OP did, one has to assume the base level of experience unless otherwise noted. Otherwise the answers are all meaningless. Therefore you have to assume 100% adherence to the rules in order to answer the question with any meaning. Sure, you can alter the system all you want to compensate for any factor, but that's not answering the question, it's bypassing it.
As for whether I use RAW when designing encounters and running games, that is a huge leap of logic to make from my comments. I have designed four separate custom 4e homebrew systems that overhaul the entire design of 4e from a ground up perspective and I have a long post history in the House Rules forum. I also run games completely on the fly with little to no preparation. Assuming I use nothing but RAW in my games based on one minor comment is drawing conclusions based on no evidence and so entirely on argumentative bias. I simply can separate between the logic required for an informative answer based on the original question and my own personal preferences.
Shin Okada
Explorer
As Matt James pointed out in the first reply, Companion Character rule in DMG2 helps. A companion character is in overall less stronger than a PC. But they do their role at least well enough.
And what important is, they are Not meant to be a DM PC which you want to avoid. They are meant to be handled out to players. And it works well as Companion Characters are simple enough. Just follow the guideline and avoid giving them triggered actions.
Or, your party can just continue playing without an additional Leader character. Various options are already shown (such as multiclassing, giving a lot of potions, etc.). Some of the Skill Powers in PHB3, and Divine Boons in DMG2, will help, too. Oh, and don't forget that Dwarfs can use Second Wind as a minor action. With appropriate feats, Warforged PCs heal themselves well, too.
But whether if those options are necessary, or can be introduced without without twisting existing PCs, will depend on the party's composition and the size.
Regarding party composition, for example, having one or two dwarf/warforged PCs, Paladin, etc., will reduce the necessity of a leader.
Regarding the party size, if the adventuring party is big enough, letting some of the PCs taking one or two each of such additional healing measures will not give them much burden. But if the party is small, some players may forced to twist their PCs a lot to provide necessary healing/save.
If some of your players are willing to roll up new PCs, another option is to use some Hybrid characters. In a small party, having a half-Leader (say, Controller/Leader and such) will be enough. In a larger party, having 2+ half-leaders could be another option, if none of your players want to play a pure Leader.
And what important is, they are Not meant to be a DM PC which you want to avoid. They are meant to be handled out to players. And it works well as Companion Characters are simple enough. Just follow the guideline and avoid giving them triggered actions.
Or, your party can just continue playing without an additional Leader character. Various options are already shown (such as multiclassing, giving a lot of potions, etc.). Some of the Skill Powers in PHB3, and Divine Boons in DMG2, will help, too. Oh, and don't forget that Dwarfs can use Second Wind as a minor action. With appropriate feats, Warforged PCs heal themselves well, too.
But whether if those options are necessary, or can be introduced without without twisting existing PCs, will depend on the party's composition and the size.
Regarding party composition, for example, having one or two dwarf/warforged PCs, Paladin, etc., will reduce the necessity of a leader.
Regarding the party size, if the adventuring party is big enough, letting some of the PCs taking one or two each of such additional healing measures will not give them much burden. But if the party is small, some players may forced to twist their PCs a lot to provide necessary healing/save.
If some of your players are willing to roll up new PCs, another option is to use some Hybrid characters. In a small party, having a half-Leader (say, Controller/Leader and such) will be enough. In a larger party, having 2+ half-leaders could be another option, if none of your players want to play a pure Leader.
[MENTION=56189]Kzach[/MENTION]: You are still missing my point, so I will try to better explain it as I concede it may have been confusing.
In the example I set up, I am fully aware of the fact that the ranger prevented the damage to the invoker. This actually is why both versions were the same. In the combat time frame of that one monster's turn in initiative, 24 points of damage was dealt in both examples. In one case, the damage was dealt to the invoker, in the other it was dealt to the monster. Obviously, having the damage dealt to the monster is preferable to the party, but the same total amount of damage was dealt during that turn. Going with the unsafe assumption that most combats end with one side either all dead/unconscious or running away due to having too few hp's left, both versions bring the fight 24 points closer to resolution.
I admit that my example did not involve a leader class taking an out of turn action. That is actually irrelevant to your comment about out of turn actions speeding up combat. Your analysis also ignores the distinction I was drawing between speeding up play and shortening the number of combat rounds. These two are not necessarily the same thing. Interrupts and reactions do slow down combat even if they reduce the total number of rounds. Play tends to really bog down as the different PCs and/or monsters start throwing interrupts around. I've seen actual turns (not rounds or combats) take close to ten minutes to resolve because of all the interrupts and reactions being tossed around and then trying to recall where were before the interrupt spam. I will grant you though that off turn actions will generally reduce the number of combat rounds, just that play speed slows down and rounds take longer (the point that you claim is patently absurd).
Your point about the cleric buffing the invoker so that he gets hit less often is right on target. The only problem is that it reinforces my comment about defensive buffs drawing out combats. As you point out, the invoker gets hit less often with the cleric's buff up. As a result, it takes longer for the monsters to kill the PCs (which is a perfectly viable combat resolution).
Of course everyone has different experiences but I also think it is a bit unrealistic to assume that there is some sort of "base experience". There is no base per RAW scenarios for an entire campaign outside of using the published adventures. At some point the DM has to choose which critters to throw at the party. I personally do not think the "base experience" is that DMs choose blindly without consideration for the party in any respect which seems to be what you are referencing. More to the point though, I was responding to your contention that my combats are long and drawn out (your words) so here, my personal experience absolutely matters since you specifically referenced it. My experience then also becomes relevant to the OP because it shows that it can be done in a way that is still entertaining to some (though not necessarily all as everyone is different).
As for homebrewing, I apologize. I did not mean to offend you which is why I stated it was an honest question. I rarely venture into the homebrew forums here so did not know your history. That is why I asked because you made it sound as if you normally do go strictly RAW. I do now understand though what you were saying, so again my apologies.
All of this goes back to the original question though of "Do we need a leader?" My contention is that no, you do not, and that this will not necessarily cause long and drawn out combats.
One thing I will absolutely agree on though is that generally speaking, if the party follows the "standard guidelines" for party composition, the game will run relatively smoothly all things being equal AND it will likely make the DM's job easier.
In the example I set up, I am fully aware of the fact that the ranger prevented the damage to the invoker. This actually is why both versions were the same. In the combat time frame of that one monster's turn in initiative, 24 points of damage was dealt in both examples. In one case, the damage was dealt to the invoker, in the other it was dealt to the monster. Obviously, having the damage dealt to the monster is preferable to the party, but the same total amount of damage was dealt during that turn. Going with the unsafe assumption that most combats end with one side either all dead/unconscious or running away due to having too few hp's left, both versions bring the fight 24 points closer to resolution.
I admit that my example did not involve a leader class taking an out of turn action. That is actually irrelevant to your comment about out of turn actions speeding up combat. Your analysis also ignores the distinction I was drawing between speeding up play and shortening the number of combat rounds. These two are not necessarily the same thing. Interrupts and reactions do slow down combat even if they reduce the total number of rounds. Play tends to really bog down as the different PCs and/or monsters start throwing interrupts around. I've seen actual turns (not rounds or combats) take close to ten minutes to resolve because of all the interrupts and reactions being tossed around and then trying to recall where were before the interrupt spam. I will grant you though that off turn actions will generally reduce the number of combat rounds, just that play speed slows down and rounds take longer (the point that you claim is patently absurd).
Your point about the cleric buffing the invoker so that he gets hit less often is right on target. The only problem is that it reinforces my comment about defensive buffs drawing out combats. As you point out, the invoker gets hit less often with the cleric's buff up. As a result, it takes longer for the monsters to kill the PCs (which is a perfectly viable combat resolution).
Of course everyone has different experiences but I also think it is a bit unrealistic to assume that there is some sort of "base experience". There is no base per RAW scenarios for an entire campaign outside of using the published adventures. At some point the DM has to choose which critters to throw at the party. I personally do not think the "base experience" is that DMs choose blindly without consideration for the party in any respect which seems to be what you are referencing. More to the point though, I was responding to your contention that my combats are long and drawn out (your words) so here, my personal experience absolutely matters since you specifically referenced it. My experience then also becomes relevant to the OP because it shows that it can be done in a way that is still entertaining to some (though not necessarily all as everyone is different).
As for homebrewing, I apologize. I did not mean to offend you which is why I stated it was an honest question. I rarely venture into the homebrew forums here so did not know your history. That is why I asked because you made it sound as if you normally do go strictly RAW. I do now understand though what you were saying, so again my apologies.
All of this goes back to the original question though of "Do we need a leader?" My contention is that no, you do not, and that this will not necessarily cause long and drawn out combats.
One thing I will absolutely agree on though is that generally speaking, if the party follows the "standard guidelines" for party composition, the game will run relatively smoothly all things being equal AND it will likely make the DM's job easier.
IME Kzach is wrong; as noted above battles go quicker in real-time without a Leader because either the PCs win or they die, whereas Leader effects are fiddly and can take a long time real-time to implement. Out-of-turn effects are particularly big time sinks; this affects Defenders too. Controllers can also slow a battle down real-time as the status effects can be fiddly too; whereas most Striker classes have very quick turns; and without a Leader if they don't win pretty fast they die.
Argyle King
Legend
I highly disagree. One of the reasons I suggested a Warlord in my previous post was because it's been my experience that they enable the party to kill the enemy faster via making allies hit harder, hit more often, and controlling economy of actions.
I would agree that a Cleric has the potential to bog down encounters. Yes, they have the most healing, but (again - in my opinion) they are less able to contribute to the party in other ways. You often need the extra healing because the enemy stays alive longer. So, while I do understand where the argument comes from that leaders can cause an encounter to take longer, I would strongly disagree that a blanket statement concerning combat length and the leader role is accurate.
In the game I currently play, I am playing a Bard. While I don't have nearly the damage output I've had in the past with Warlord characters (I quite often play the leader role,) I have the ability to amp up what my allies are able to do via things like Haste and similar powers I've snagged by multiclassing.
It's funny that the concept of a 5 striker party was mentioned because that's not far off from what the current party is in this game. Other than my bard character, the party consists of a barbarian (striker,) sorcerer (striker,) fighter (defender - but he hits like a striker,) and a warlord (he also has powers to buff the party and grant actions.) It's fairly trivial for us to be able to generate several hundred points of damage per round. If we focus fire on a creature and it survives more than one round after we do so, it's a miracle.
edit: I'll concede that the encounter would take more real time if we didn't keep track of our powers and all expected the GM to keep tabs on everything. It's expected at our table that the players pick up the responsibility of knowing what their powers do and informing the other players at the table as to any effects they have in play.
Last edited:
IanB
First Post
My feeling about whether or not the party can go on without a leader, is that it is basically entirely up to your encounter design. As a DM you can certainly play around the lack - if you don't change how you design encounters and the sorts of creatures you're using, though, they will probably have a rough time of it.
OnlineDM
Adventurer
Back to the OP:
I once had a party of three PCs and no leader. I gave one of the PCs who didn't have a lot of minor actions a free Healing Word twice per encounter, as if she were a cleric. It worked just fine. She now had something to do as a minor action, and the party had access to in-combat healing.
You'll want to adjust your XP budgets a bit in this situation (you've now upped the power level of the party), but that's not hard to do.
I once had a party of three PCs and no leader. I gave one of the PCs who didn't have a lot of minor actions a free Healing Word twice per encounter, as if she were a cleric. It worked just fine. She now had something to do as a minor action, and the party had access to in-combat healing.
You'll want to adjust your XP budgets a bit in this situation (you've now upped the power level of the party), but that's not hard to do.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
No combat role is absolutely necessary, but the leader role comes closest. The game basically expects the party to have at least two 'floating' surge triggers.
Not that leaderless parties are impossible, but I wouldn't want to be part of one without a good house rule or two. Ideas that come to mind:
1. Healing potions grant your full surge value, rather than the pathetic flat value that RAW grants. (If your game ever gets into paragon levels, you may have to put restrictions on lower level potions.)
2. You can use your Second Wind as a move action, without the usual defense bonus. And/or you can use a second Second Wind per encounter.
3. The DM introduces a Tinkerbell NPC whose sole combat ability is to grant healing triggers as a leader.
Not that leaderless parties are impossible, but I wouldn't want to be part of one without a good house rule or two. Ideas that come to mind:
1. Healing potions grant your full surge value, rather than the pathetic flat value that RAW grants. (If your game ever gets into paragon levels, you may have to put restrictions on lower level potions.)
2. You can use your Second Wind as a move action, without the usual defense bonus. And/or you can use a second Second Wind per encounter.
3. The DM introduces a Tinkerbell NPC whose sole combat ability is to grant healing triggers as a leader.
Similar Threads
