Najo said:
The leader in music guides the whole band, the leader of a business guides the company. If anything, the term leader is deeming to the other terms of striker, controller and defender.
And the "leader" in a tactical game guides the actions of the other players. (players being PCs and DMs.)
It's not demeaning in any way. It's simply a way to classify how its powers work. Because the cleric's powers make certain options more or less effective, good tactics say to follow what it creates.
The 4e rules set is covering the entire gamut of roleplaying. Social encounters, fluff, story and history, character roles, all of it. It is being made for new players to easily hop in and play, the term leader says "boss" to someone who does not play games or is familiar with the class system in D&D.
Yes, the game will consist of tactical rules, and role playing options, story, and fluff. All of these elements will be put together in a way that is hopefully easier to work with then previous editions, and smoother in play as well.
However, when I say ruleset I do not speak of the game as a whole. I speak of the numbers elements, the tactical rules, and how they are used.
If you are playing a halfling, and decide not to use a squeaky high pitched voice, you are not breaking any rules.
If you have a BAB of +5 and instead you decide to add +32 you are breaking the rules.
In terms of the rules the "leader" is being explained in a tactical way (the second example) in order to help new players understand that in terms of roleplaying, you can give your dude a squeaky voice or a constant wheez, or whatever you want. roleplaying is yours. In terms of tactics, the cleric is best understood in the role of a leader. One who's choices, and powers effect not only what your character can choose to do, but the choices of the others in your group as well.
The leader in a tactical situation is the one who directs the actions of their forces. The leader tells the other components beneath them what to do. I realize it is not a passive thing, which is why I think the term doesn't apply to the cleric as the cleric's powers, at best, leads passively in the way some people are presenting the class as a leader. Healing, buffing and running away are not leading.
You are in effect telling them what or how to do something by adding or removing options. It's not a passive thing. It's also seemingly being turned into a more active role then ever before.
For instance, say a cleric has a healing "field." if you are an ally, and within 10 feet of the cleric, you can be healed. The cleric is effectively telling his allies to remain within 10 feet.
Sure, you can go off on your own, but then you'll pay the consequences. Just like if you decide not to do something the way your boss wants you to at work you'll pay the consequences. (It might work out, but it might also get you fired.)
All of the character's actions are causing things to happen. That is what occurs in a fight. Your tactics are used to minimize your reacting and maximize your opponent's reacting, while minimizing losses in resources, capabilties and lives. All classes make choices together to use their tactics, it is the leader of the party that enables this to occur and acts as either the hub or the voice for it in battle. The cleric is rarely in that role, more often the fighter or wizard type characters are, as they oversee the key moments of the battle and act on the offensive.
But again, the way the powers work are changing. The Cleric (it seems) will have more powers and abilities to function as the one that works as the hub.
And still, all characters can effect the battle. The cleric will most directly effect the tactics involved and which options are best taken.
The cleric is not directly affecting the character. The character can choose to do whatever they want. Just because the cleric says I am buffing you now, doesn't force a fighter to attack. It is just as easy for the fighter to bark and order to his cleric buddy to buff him, since he is moving in to fight.
The fighter barking is a "boss" role. He's giving an order.The cleric casting the buff spell is a "leader" role because it is changing the best tactics for the fighter to use.
I'm a fighter facing two opponents. One is an outsider. The other is a Humanoid. Let's say both of them are capable of dealing roughly the same damage each round.
The cleric casts protection from outsiders on me.
I'm fully able to choose to attack the humanoid, but better tactics would suggest confronting the outsider, who cannot deal any damage to me. In that way I can hopefully dispatch it before confronting the humanoid.
That is how the cleric leads. By in a sense choosing the best tactics for you to use.
The healer/ support is as important as the defender. They both protect and guide the party. The strikers and the controllers then manage the pacing of the party. All classes have moments where they will take on leader roles. The term supporter is more appropiate and no less deeming than defender.
And they've already stated that all classes will have some elements of the other roles built into them. The cleric is simply built around the idea of the leader role. It's not a demeaning thing. It's just a tactics term.
This cleric's role being defined as leader is a stretch. I get that the term doesn't matter in the big picture, but I am thinking of the transition new players go through and feel this creates a unnecessary snag. It could also effect the designers though, as the team changes or 3rd parties build for the game, leader is a misrepresented role.
It's not misrepresented! As long as the new designers are doing their job and keeping consistent with the cleric having "leader" powers, things will be fine.
As for new players, clearly defining how their powers effect the party and opponents (you lead what they do) is the best option.
One final note: The queen in chess is not a leader. She is a controller. The king is the only leader, as all of your moves are based on protecting him over anything else.
Actually I'd very much disagree here.
The King functions as the controller. If he moves, the battlefield changes. I can arrange the "perfect" trap for the opponent's king, but as soon as he moved 1 space over, my trap can be foiled, and I have to rethink exactly how to move my pieces in order to once again trap the king.
This is similar to the wizard. Say he casts a spll that causes the terrain to become difficult. Suddenly options like charge become less effective, or impossible.
The queen, however, when I move her into a space, you either have to find a way to take her out, or back off, because chances are, due to her many movement options she'll be able to get you.
Ironically, the bishops are support, while the rooks are defenders, the knights are striker and the pawns are minions.
I'd agree with most of the above, however, pawns might be controllers in a way. When they move into a space, they limit the spaces your opponent can go... (maybe they're just a terrain effect...

)