Do we need a Leader?

[Nemesis Destiny]

There are many ways compensate for a lack of leader (as far as healing is concerned), in fact. Multiclassing into Shaman is one of the more popular ways to make a "secondary leader" with per-encounter heals. Paladins with Lay on Hands and a plethora of other utility heals is another.

Then there's Skill Powers. Both Heal and Religion have some options.

On top of that, now that some classes have some "role bleed" via new builds, you have, for example, Controller Druids taking Sentinel powers that heal.

The bigger issue with a lack of Leader in a party is not the healing, so much as it is the buffing / debuffing, action-enabling, and other benefits that a leader provides, which are much harder to compensate for.

Actually, I think action-enabling is actually the most potent leader benefit, and also hardest thing to find outside of a leader class. When your Warlord (or whatever) is allowing the striker to go basically twice per round, the enemy falls that much faster. That's incredible action economy, and the benefits trickle down to every aspect of adventuring; less surges spent, less daily powers used, less consumables, etc, all leading to a longer adventuring day and / or the ability to tackle harder challenges.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

I agree with the majority's consensus that a Leader class is not *absolutely* essential, but dang...they sure do come in handy sometimes.

For example, we were in some God-forsaken corner of the Tomb Of Horrors a couple of Saturday night sessions ago, and we were in this room with some weird kind of mist. Guess what? Anytime you used a Healing Surge, you got -0- healing from it. Only thing that worked was surgeless healing, which fortunately our Cleric had some of... If he hadn't, we'd have been in trouble I think.

That's probably a rare situation though.

 

[KarinsDad]

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 think a lot of Leader buffs and debuffs are extremely illusory when it comes to speeding up combat, both in real time and via "killing enemies faster".

+2 to hit until the end of the next turn sounds good on the surface, but 90% of the time, it changes nothing and actually slows down the encounter because someone has to do some level of bookkeeping to keep track of the buff. Even if that level of bookkeeping is merely the player of the Leader PC telling another player to remember that his PC has a +2 (and it can be more than that like tokens or stuff written down or affecting some PCs and not others), it's slows up the encounter and uses up some level of time.

And buffs/debuffs slow down an encounter even more when they're temporarily forgotten and the DM has to try to retcon something.

Ditto for handing out free attacks.

Giving another PC a basic attack sounds good on the surface, but if the Leader loses his own attack by doing so and the other PC is not a Striker, then all that occurred is for one subpar damage (i.e. non-Striker level) attack being replaced with a different one. And the amount of conversation that occurs when one player gives another player a free attack actually slows up combat, even if the attack is given to a Striker.

"Let's see, should I give the attack to the Warlock, or to the Slayer?" and further conversation ensues.

As opposed to:

"I use xyz attack on the Ogre."

In the second case, other players are not necessarily drawn into a tactical discussion. Other players typically do not have to on the fly suddenly decide if they are going to use x attack or y attack or something else.

I've found for quite a while that the thing that slows encounters up the most is the vast plethora of conditions, special powers, interrupts, and other game aspects that pull multiple players into a single player's turn (or into a monster's turn). It does keep more people involved more often, but it pushes a 30 minute encounter into a 50 minute encounter.

Strikers and Defenders tend to not have too many of these extra conditions (although Defenders have marks and Strikers can have Immediate Interrupts). These roles often tend to get in, do their turn without pulling other PCs in too much on their turns, and then get out.

Leaders and Controllers tend to litter the battlefield with a wide variety of conditions, zones, and special rules. All Leaders do this to some extent, even Warlords. In some ways, Warlords do it more than many other Leaders. I have an Ardent/Bard that rarely throws a bunch of conditions out. The main thing he does is throw out temporary hit points (which other players are used to now), so he's extremely fast compared to a Warlord. Warlords can drag out an encounter.

With a Warlord, the encounter might end in 7 1/2 rounds instead of 8 rounds, but it might also take 2 hours instead of 1 3/4 hours. If the Warlord was replaced with a Striker, the encounter might still end in 7 1/2 rounds (or even fewer), but it won't be 2 hours long anymore.


As to whether a Leader is necessary, he's not. Healing is what is necessary. Healing is the number one advantage that PCs have over NPCs since very few NPCs can heal. Take it away and the dice rule completely. If NPCs focus fire on a PC, that PC can be kept in the action as long as the group has healing. If PCs focus fire on an NPC, that NPC is eventually going down and there's nothing the other NPCs can do about it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think a lot of Leader buffs and debuffs are extremely illusory when it comes to speeding up combat, both in real time and via "killing enemies faster".

+2 to hit until the end of the next turn sounds good on the surface, but 90% of the time, it changes nothing and actually slows down the encounter because someone has to do some level of bookkeeping to keep track of the buff. Even if that level of bookkeeping is merely the player of the Leader PC telling another player to remember that his PC has a +2 (and it can be more than that like tokens or stuff written down or affecting some PCs and not others), it's slows up the encounter and uses up some level of time.

This is a very very good argument. Bonuses to damage are somewhat more reliable... but still don´t too much.
But on the other hand, a group with 2,5 leader may not necessarily slow down the game, if they can be played very straightforward... (a warlord grouped up with a slayer and a thief should be easy to play)

In the end, with the right items and some good tactics, a missing role can be replaced in 95% of the combats...

A single javelin of lightning may replace the controller in clearing out minions...
The problem usually is having 2 of those rare combats, where a missing role cannot be easily replaced, on the same day, so that your compensating items and powers (a.k.a daily resources) are already used up.

 

[Rechan]

I once ran a few sessions with just a Warlock and a Ranger. Only gave them a leader NPC for one combat (against a nasty Elite and some minions).

Adjust your monster usage. The biggest threats are monsters that do serious spike damage (Lurkers) or throw out a lot of conditions.

It also means that certain tactics or situations become more deadly. Like if the PCs get surrounded/separated, they're boned. Unless someone can get a potion to a dying party member (which means they have to be adjacent), they're likely boned too. You have two melee strikers, those guys are more likely to go on the ropes or die.

But, play a session normally without changing the healing rules too much and see how it goes. Then react accordingly. I bet your fights will be a lot more white knuckled and tense, but also very fun. While I like to play leaders, I think that arrangement might be fun to play in. It makes things a lot more lethal but interesting.

As a sidenote, man leaders do more than heal. I played the bard build that did the "Oh you missed by one? Nope, you hit" "Oh that enemy hit you by one? Nope, he didn't". The fact Majestic Word slid a healed ally saved them almost as much as the healing itself. I took other powers that let me move allies out of death's clutches. And if not for me, the barbarian would have died a dozen times since he liked to charge 10 spaces ahead of everyone else in the first round and wind up on the floor by the end of round 2 (I spent half my turns chasing after him).

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

"Let's see, should I give the attack to the Warlock, or to the Slayer?" and further conversation ensues.

This isn't really a big problem. If the party has (a) a basic-attack-granting leader, and (b) a striker with good basic attacks, then the party gets used to "here, take a melee basic on that guy."

It'll take a bit longer in the beginning to process, but once the party's used to being told to take some basic attacks out of turn once in a while, they'll go very quickly.

And all things considered, I'd rather exchange my leader attack for a striker's attack.

Brad

 

[mneme]

I think a lot of Leader buffs and debuffs are extremely illusory when it comes to speeding up combat, both in real time and via "killing enemies faster".

+2 to hit until the end of the next turn sounds good on the surface, but 90% of the time, it changes nothing

Sure, but it's still a 10% buff to damage. If it comes for free (as an attack rider), that's still pretty solid.

But the big money is on the -big- buffs to hit/damage, and, of course, on extra attacks. Tactical Warlords are throwing out up to a +5 to hit on most combats for most players at first level, extra attacks at +5 to damage on nearly every turn, and if they can make an attack hit (be a Deva, and grab some other "true strike" like abilities so you can hit with that one attack) can hand out -another- +5 to hit in the combat where they need it. Psions are handing out a similar bonus multiple times per combat [No, Psions aren't leaders. Although I'd argue that the Disenhearten/Mind Thrust Psion is functionally a leader with only preventitive healing, not a controller at all; he lacks the multi-target spells (until he takes a third at will, anyway), significant flexiblity, and hard choices that characterize a controller, and instead has the ability to provide the party with a massive bonus to hit a single NPC (attack buffs disguised as control) or a massive defenses boost against that NPC (defensive boosts/preventitive healing disguised as control). And Artificers and Warlords with the right paragon path start handing out those big buffs every combat, to multiple characters.

At low levels, the reset button is a big deal. At high levels, it's still a big deal, but not nearly as often; much more often, it's the big buffs and enablers that are a big deal. There's a reason my Deva Avenger (Artificer Battlesmith) has the leader nature, despite the only healing she has access to being the Artificer multiclass and a good Heal skill.

 

[KarinsDad]

This isn't really a big problem. If the party has (a) a basic-attack-granting leader, and (b) a striker with good basic attacks, then the party gets used to "here, take a melee basic on that guy."

It'll take a bit longer in the beginning to process, but once the party's used to being told to take some basic attacks out of turn once in a while, they'll go very quickly.

And all things considered, I'd rather exchange my leader attack for a striker's attack.

No doubt.

But whether the use of a given power slows up the game or not depends on the group, and party makeup and abilities. The fact that multiple players are making a tactical decision (and sometimes discussion) instead of a single player just deciding for himself means that there's the potential for it to slow up the game. Not necessarily a lot, but some.

I've seen situations where the group starts to talk about it. For example, if the Striker is taking on the slightly damaged Elite and the free attack does not include a move, he cannot take out the bloodied Standard monster. He's stuck attacking the Elite. Another player will say "No, don't give the attack to the Barbarian, the other Ogre is almost dead".

Granted, this can happen with any attack, but the fact that multiple players get involved in an attack by definition allows for and even encourages discussion that can slow up the encounter. Not every time, but it does happen.

 

[Argyle King]

I think a lot of Leader buffs and debuffs are extremely illusory when it comes to speeding up combat, both in real time and via "killing enemies faster".

All I can say is that has not been the experience I've had. It's anecdotal I know, but I've played multiple campaigns from 1-30, and I've found it's very noticeable when the party lacks a leader.

The current game (which I briefly mentioned earlier) is now at level 24.

+2 to hit until the end of the next turn sounds good on the surface, but 90% of the time, it changes nothing and actually slows down the encounter because someone has to do some level of bookkeeping to keep track of the buff. Even if that level of bookkeeping is merely the player of the Leader PC telling another player to remember that his PC has a +2 (and it can be more than that like tokens or stuff written down or affecting some PCs and not others), it's slows up the encounter and uses up some level of time.

And buffs/debuffs slow down an encounter even more when they're temporarily forgotten and the DM has to try to retcon something.

I'll first just say that we very rarely retcon anything at our table. If someone is a new player and/or using an option they have not used before, they are given some slack. However; usually, if you bone yourself by forgetting something and the DM has already moved on and started the next turn, it's too late.

As for the bookkeeping... I can only take your word on the issue mentioned. I typically write things down on my character sheet; the majority of the time, that has been enough to help me out. However, I in no way expect everyone to play the same way I do.

When it comes to the '+2.' Again, all I can say is that my experience has been vastly different. I currently have a power called Balance of Fortune with my bard character. Until the end of my next turn, I get to roll 1d6 whenever someone attacks the target and add my roll to theirs; when the target attacks, I roll 1d6 and subtract. There have been many times when that has made a huge difference. Hitting (IMO) can often be more important than dealing damage; that +2 can potentially make the difference between delivering a disabling effect or not delivering it. I'll also add that the bonuses I give are often more than 1 or 2 points.

Ditto for handing out free attacks.

Giving another PC a basic attack sounds good on the surface, but if the Leader loses his own attack by doing so and the other PC is not a Striker, then all that occurred is for one subpar damage (i.e. non-Striker level) attack being replaced with a different one. And the amount of conversation that occurs when one player gives another player a free attack actually slows up combat, even if the attack is given to a Striker.

I generally would not grant an attack if my own attack would do the same and/or better damage. Though there have been occasions when I've been unable to reach the enemy, so my choice was to either grant an attack or do nothing with my turn. On a side note, I'll also say that a favorite trick of one of my first characters -Warlord MC Wizard- was to use Time Stop and then commander's strike 3 times. TS says *I* can't use the extra actions to attack; it doesn't say I cannot ask someone else to attack.

Conversation? "Hey, attack that guy."

 

[KarinsDad]

When it comes to the '+2.' Again, all I can say is that my experience has been vastly different. I currently have a power called Balance of Fortune with my bard character. Until the end of my next turn, I get to roll 1d6 whenever someone attacks the target and add my roll to theirs; when the target attacks, I roll 1d6 and subtract. There have been many times when that has made a huge difference. Hitting (IMO) can often be more important than dealing damage; that +2 can potentially make the difference between delivering a disabling effect or not delivering it. I'll also add that the bonuses I give are often more than 1 or 2 points.

Yes. That's a good power.

But a huge difference? Often?

Are there really so many encounters that it has changed more than 2 rolls total in the entire encounter?

How many times has it not done a thing? On average, if 3 PCs attack this foe and you roll a 4 on all 4 rolls, that's 80% * 80% * 80% * 80% or 40% of the time (assuming 3 PC attacks which isn't always the case). 60% of the time, it does something. But 40% of the time, it does nothing significant except a few points of damage.

And that's assuming it hits. If your Bard has a 70% chance to hit, that's 42% chance of doing something and 58% chance of doing nothing at all with 3 PCs attacking. Jumping to 50/50 if 4 PCs attack that foe. The math illustrates that about half of encounters, your power should be doing virtually nothing except maybe a small amount of damage. Yes as humans, we remember when it helped saved the day, but we tend to forget when it flubbed completely. And yes, all 5 PCs can attack that one foe, but that's rarely the case. There are usually reasons for not all of the PCs to attack one foe (even with the concept of focus fire), at least if the DM challenges the players. And all 5 PCs could use an action point and attack the foe twice. The power can be made a lot more effective. But some encounters do not have elites or solos (many of which have good Will defenses), so there is a good chance that most of the time, the other PCs are not using action points with this power against a standard foe.

And to be a huge difference, it really would need to affect at least 3 of the 4+ rolls which is somewhat rare. Even affecting 2 of the 4+ would be somewhat rare and can just as easily be done with a Controller power. An Immobilize or Daze/Prone or Dominate or Stun can help the party as much or more than this does. Our 16 level Paladin tries to Dominate a foe every encounter with Siren Voice. If she hits compared to your Bard's power hitting, it's -60% chance for the foe to hit a PC (the foe doesn't attack a PC, so it's the equivalent of a huge minus to hit) and +60% chance for the foe to hit a foe. As opposed to -5% to -30% for the foe to hit a PC and a +5% to +30% times the number of PCs chance for PCs to hit a foe. To get to that same 120% swing, you have to have an average of 6 PCs attacking the foe. The Paladin could also have a foe jump off a cliff or do other things. Your power does not have that versatility.

Now consider how much your power here affects an entire encounter. One foe out of five for one round out of six or so.

Huge?

Yes, it can definitely help, but at 17th level of what all 5 PCs can do in an entire encounter, it's really a drop in the bucket. In our 16th level game, we would consider this a solid, but not great power. Helpful, but not huge the vast majority of the time. A lot more helpful against solos, but not so much in more standard encounters.

At 17th level, this power is sometimes stopping ~25 points of damage and a possible effect , and sometimes adding maybe 50 points of damage and some possible effect(s) in an encounter where the foes might have 1000 hit points. Measurable, sure. Huge? Probably not too often.


As an example in our game, our 16th level Slayer usually hits on a 3 or a 4 on the die (she has tons of bonuses to hit and charges most rounds). So, adding +6 via your Bard's power isn't really going to help that much. If she needs a 4 for a given foe, 90.8% of the time (5% she rolled a 3 and 5% * 84% she rolled a 2 and you rolled a 2 or higher), your Bard power here does absolutely nothing for her. Again, assuming your power hits (we're actually talking closer to 94% of the time, it doesn't help her).

It might help out your group more, but would do little for some of the PCs in our group. So like I said, it can be group dependent and it can be a bit illusory or misleading as to how much a given buff or debuff actually helps. All buffs and debuffs help out at some point in a campaign, but they don't necessarily help out every encounter.


At 17th level, the 16th level Cleric power Cloak of Courage is huge because it hands out 120+ temporary hit points per Encounter in a 5 PC group and since the PC Cleric can do it before an encounter even starts, it doesn't typically use up a Standard Action to use it like your power. That automatically saves the PCs a minimum of 2 healing surges per encounter. And it's dependable. There is no chance to miss with the power or for it to not help at all. Everyone except the Cleric gets double the effectiveness of the Toughness feat at 16th level for the cost of a single encounter power.

Your power would probably average just under 1 healing surge per encounter savings (by taking a foe out slightly quicker sometimes and by preventing some minor amount of PC damage and effects sometimes), possibly 2 in a solo fight with players using action points. It has the potential to be fairly awesome, but it probably isn't in most encounters. As one example, if your Bard misses with it.

But, this power here is far from making a huge difference compared to many other similar level Encounter powers in the game system. It's good, but not great.