Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7030172" data-attributes="member: 37579">Rules for magic tend to be more explicit, since they're not something covered by common sense. The DM can use common sense on rulings for most physical activities (whether or not someone can pull a rug, swing from a chandelier, kick a sword up into their hand, etc). That doesn't work with magic, so there needs to be rules. A &quot;leader&quot; is a roleplaying niche for characters. Like the diplomancer/ face or the womanizer. It's covered in the broadest sense by Charisma ability checks but the rest is left to the player. The player says they're inspiring and they are.It's also odd to take a character role of &quot;leader&quot; and assign it to a single class. It is a little like having a &quot;diplomat&quot; class. Or a con artists. There could easily be a &quot;swindler&quot; class that excels in disguises, tricking people into revealing information, reading tells, winnng trust, etc. It's a big archetype that's distinct from rogues. (The show Leverage or the movie Ocean's Every leven really shows how a thief and grifter are distinct. And I doubt anyone from The Sting should have evasion and sneak attack.)But, at the end of the day, the leader has been covered. There's a feat, a bard subclasses, and two fighter subclasses that touch on its abilities. Each of those appeals to some fans of the archetype. There's less pressure for a full class, which would also make those options redundant. In contrast, there's a lot of other builds and archetypes that haven't been covered once, let alone four times. &quot;Not perfectly replicating a class from an old edition&quot; isn't a strong enough reason to go back to it again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 7030172, member: 37579"] Rules for magic tend to be more explicit, since they're not something covered by common sense. The DM can use common sense on rulings for most physical activities (whether or not someone can pull a rug, swing from a chandelier, kick a sword up into their hand, etc). That doesn't work with magic, so there needs to be rules. A "leader" is a roleplaying niche for characters. Like the diplomancer/ face or the womanizer. It's covered in the broadest sense by Charisma ability checks but the rest is left to the player. The player says they're inspiring and they are. It's also odd to take a character role of "leader" and assign it to a single class. It is a little like having a "diplomat" class. Or a con artists. There could easily be a "swindler" class that excels in disguises, tricking people into revealing information, reading tells, winnng trust, etc. It's a big archetype that's distinct from rogues. (The show [i]Leverage[/i] or the movie [i]Ocean's Every leven[/i] really shows how a thief and grifter are distinct. And I doubt anyone from [i]The Sting[/i] should have evasion and sneak attack.) But, at the end of the day, the leader has been covered. There's a feat, a bard subclasses, and two fighter subclasses that touch on its abilities. Each of those appeals to some fans of the archetype. There's less pressure for a full class, which would also make those options redundant. In contrast, there's a lot of other builds and archetypes that haven't been covered once, let alone four times. "Not perfectly replicating a class from an old edition" isn't a strong enough reason to go back to it again. [/QUOTE]

Verification