Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5673172" data-attributes="member: 2011">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.</blockquote>

Verification