who always take charge in your group?
- Thread starter Sodalis
- Start date
Sir Osis of Liver
Explorer
i voted rogue because i think you were looking for who takes the lead in party marching order and for our group it's generaly the rogue.
if you ment who is the party leader, than it has nothing to do with character class but role play and pc concept.
if you ment who is the party leader, than it has nothing to do with character class but role play and pc concept.
novyet
First Post
Well in our party it's pretty much everyone, but our face to the world if you will, is our bard. Our sorcerer is more of the burn it until it stops moving type, and the fighter comes up with tactics all the time, but his intelligence of 8 pretty much makes sure they are very good tactics. 
Sad to say, I had to vote barbarian. He runs down the halls in a random direction with the rogue desperately trying to disarm the traps as we go. Once in a while he will be subdued when the party faces something major but mostly his personality is just to dominate. I’m surprised sometimes by how long that group has lasted. 
the thing is, I thought that a char's stats will dictate how he will act.
A barb will naturally be the muscle, and will NOT be the diplomat of the group. (i play the barb of the group)
But on occasion, he will charge into unnecessary battles, or make hasty decisions... and in that case- he is the one that is leading, and making the decisuions for the group.
This usually happens when they are in the wilderness because his wilderness skills, HP and rage comes in really handy.
But in the city, he is a chicken... clucks a lot but never does anything. The cleric is usually the one that talks a lot there... where he has education and faith on his side. He is more persuasive in that he has a major religion/ church backing his statements and his believability is much higher because of this.
The rogue is the leader in dungeons. he is the one that finds traps and decides how to handle situations. In dungeons, he will tell certain people to go certain places, and certain people to stand watch while he enters the room...
My question is:
Is this true for all parties, or justmine, that certain classes take charge in certain situations? or is it just a product of teh players that do all the talking?
A barb will naturally be the muscle, and will NOT be the diplomat of the group. (i play the barb of the group)
But on occasion, he will charge into unnecessary battles, or make hasty decisions... and in that case- he is the one that is leading, and making the decisuions for the group.
This usually happens when they are in the wilderness because his wilderness skills, HP and rage comes in really handy.
But in the city, he is a chicken... clucks a lot but never does anything. The cleric is usually the one that talks a lot there... where he has education and faith on his side. He is more persuasive in that he has a major religion/ church backing his statements and his believability is much higher because of this.
The rogue is the leader in dungeons. he is the one that finds traps and decides how to handle situations. In dungeons, he will tell certain people to go certain places, and certain people to stand watch while he enters the room...
My question is:
Is this true for all parties, or justmine, that certain classes take charge in certain situations? or is it just a product of teh players that do all the talking?
Frostmarrow
First Post
Everybody knows the paladin takes charge. I'm surprised that the paladin wasn't an option. Oh well, I'll vote on some other poll then...
As a DM, I try to strictly avoid giving the party an NPC who 'leads' them.
I often have a 'Giles' figure, but that's just to get the party started, and he rarely stays around in the campaign.
In the past, I had a problem with no PCs coming forward to lead - and democracies don't work well in a dungeon environment. But in my latest two campaigns, a leader-type character has stepped forward. Even better, in my email game, they seem to (unconsciously, I'm sure) look to different characters depending on the situation (which gives everyone a chance to be leader). Still, they're very disorganized in combat.
For the record, I voted cleric, because in both my games, a cleric is looked to the most.
I often have a 'Giles' figure, but that's just to get the party started, and he rarely stays around in the campaign.
In the past, I had a problem with no PCs coming forward to lead - and democracies don't work well in a dungeon environment. But in my latest two campaigns, a leader-type character has stepped forward. Even better, in my email game, they seem to (unconsciously, I'm sure) look to different characters depending on the situation (which gives everyone a chance to be leader). Still, they're very disorganized in combat.
For the record, I voted cleric, because in both my games, a cleric is looked to the most.
Quickbeam
Explorer
I'm with Frostmarrow on this one. In our last two campaigns we've had a paladin that was the party's ad hoc leader in 70-80% of all situations. In previous campaigns, the barbarian and sorceror dictated much of the action, either with their persuasive charm or ill-tempered, rough and tumble attitude.
In groups where the roleplaying isn't very strong, the players who are most vocal control the game's flow by their willingness to speak openly and often -- regardless of their PC class.
In groups where the roleplaying isn't very strong, the players who are most vocal control the game's flow by their willingness to speak openly and often -- regardless of their PC class.
