WotC_Shoe on leaderless parties

[Dragonblade]

Remember, there are no buff potions anymore. At least I'm pretty sure that's what I read somewhere. Potions are pretty much just for healing now.

So potion drinking as a minor action isn't going to allow the PC to pull off some uber buff and then attack.

But as a DM, I think potion drinking as a minor action is a good thing. It means my bad guy doesn't have to spend a round doing nothing but getting hammered on by PCs while he tries to heal himself.

 

[Lizard]

This whole "leader" role makes little sense to me. So because I make a warlord character I am automatically a "leader"??? In every PnP game I have ever taken part in, someone within the group has more or less assumed the role of leader thruroleplaying and actions within the game... and his or her ability to get the party to act as a cohesive unit.

What if four people in the party choose to play the warlord class? To me leadership is something which hinges on roleplaying ability rather than game mechanics.

They didn't want to call them "Healers", because some people don't like playing the medic. Callimg them "leaders" make them more appealing. I doubt there'll be any mechanical enforcement of the idea that your "Leader" character is, in fact, in charge.

At least, I hope not.

 

[jaer]

This whole "leader" role makes little sense to me. So because I make a warlord character I am automatically a "leader"??? In every PnP game I have ever taken part in, someone within the group has more or less assumed the role of leader thruroleplaying and actions within the game... and his or her ability to get the party to act as a cohesive unit.

What if four people in the party choose to play the warlord class? To me leadership is something which hinges on roleplaying ability rather than game mechanics.

But does not class also indicate a certain amount of personality and role in the party? By playing a wizard, you are pretty much stating your character will be intelligent, a bard would be charismatic. From there, the personality of the character takes shape - will it be scholarly intellect? Natural smarts? Snooty "so much smarter than you" intelligence?

The class does dictate a certain personality. If some one is playing a Warlord, the character should have a leader-like personality to go with it. I would say that is part of the fun: trying to play the character that was made. By picking the warlord, a player is saying "I am going to rise to the role-playing challenge of being a leader!"

I'm excited to give it a go.

 

[Lizard]

The class does dictate a certain personality. If some one is playing a Warlord, the character should have a leader-like personality to go with it. I would say that is part of the fun: trying to play the character that was made. By picking the warlord, a player is saying "I am going to rise to the role-playing challenge of being a leader!"

I'm excited to give it a go.

So, there are no humble, self-effacing clerics? Or dashing rogues (Strikers), or bossy wizards (controllers), or nobleborn knights (Defenders)?

If people start assuming any character with the "leader" role is, in fact, supposed to be a leader in the general sense of the term, my worst fears about the classification scheme will have been realized.

I can easily see a "Warlord" as a mercenary captain, hired by the high-charisma party wizard to go do the grunt work -- but he better not start thinking of himself as anything other than a hired hand, or he'll be scouting out lilypads, if you get my drift.

 

[Thyrwyn]

"Name" of Class Role =! Personality type. Just because you chose to play a class that fulfills the "leader" role, does not make your character a leader (of the party or anyone else for that matter).

 

[jaer]

So, there are no humble, self-effacing clerics? Or dashing rogues (Strikers), or bossy wizards (controllers), or nobleborn knights (Defenders)?

If people start assuming any character with the "leader" role is, in fact, supposed to be a leader in the general sense of the term, my worst fears about the classification scheme will have been realized.

I can easily see a "Warlord" as a mercenary captain, hired by the high-charisma party wizard to go do the grunt work -- but he better not start thinking of himself as anything other than a hired hand, or he'll be scouting out lilypads, if you get my drift.

Sorry if I was not clear in my statement. I like to view it as a jumping off point for character creation. Profession (class) seems a good way of determaning one's personality. Shy, social awkward people do not tend to make good salepeople; the same is true for bards.

Does this mean that you cannot have a bossy wizard? No...it just means he will ALWAYS be an intelligent wizard (if he's any good). I see no reason to think that intelligent != bossy, grouchy, charming, or any other adjective that doesn't imply stupid. Why could an intelligent wizard not be nobleborn or self-effacing or dashing? I had not thought I had implied such a thing.

A Warlord has shown that in some capacity, they must be able to lead through some of their abilities. I seem to recall one mentioned that, when a Warlord charged an opponent, any ally who charged that same oppionent got a bonus; another (Feather me yon oaf) in which the warlord directed the party to use missile weapons at one specific enemy on the Warlord's turn.

So even if the Warlord is a hired on mercenary and not Party Leader, his basic abilities require him to lead in some way (such as ordering a missile strike or leading a charge). It makes so sense for his abilities if he cannot lead. If every time he uses one of these abilities, the wizard roars out "I am party leader, no you! I make the decisions!" then the class becomes no fun to play because their is an implied need for the character to lead.

Just like it would be difficult to play a cowardly defender (possible, but lacking logical sence), I would imagine it will be difficult to play a leader class that has no believable ability to lead and inspire people.

Does being a leader make the PC party leader? No. But if you are making a character who picked being a Warlord to begin with, some aspect of leadership should be in his personality...why else would he be in that profession?

Can you have a Warlord who doesn't want to lead? Sure...the noble raised to rule, taught tactics and strategy; good student but one who never wanted the burden of leadership. But he would find that in using his class-given abilities, he was leading people. Sounds like the type of character that grows from the reluctant heir to the noble king (Aragorn much?).

 

[rkanodia]

So, there are no humble, self-effacing clerics? Or dashing rogues (Strikers), or bossy wizards (controllers), or nobleborn knights (Defenders)?

If people start assuming any character with the "leader" role is, in fact, supposed to be a leader in the general sense of the term, my worst fears about the classification scheme will have been realized.

I can easily see a "Warlord" as a mercenary captain, hired by the high-charisma party wizard to go do the grunt work -- but he better not start thinking of himself as anything other than a hired hand, or he'll be scouting out lilypads, if you get my drift.

I still want to run with the 'ridiculous braggart' Warlord, who is continually being shown up by the other characters, who are, on a game level, benefiting greatly from class abilities which the Warlord is, in-character, more or less unaware of. "Bah! I did all the REAL work on that ogre, and then you louts just show up at the end, sneak in one piddly little sword swing, and try to take credit for my kill?!"

 

[Spinachcat]

Potions are spells kept in liquid. They take a full action to find / drink / activate because the drinking part is only 1/3 of the action. They are a way for non-casters to "cast" spells on themselves. It is a full action for a cleric to cast Cure Lights on himself, then it should take a full action for the fighter to drink a potion of Cure Lights.

Also, I have rarely seen PCs suck down potions while in battle. It is something they do when they have retreated out of a fight or after a battle to patch wounds or before a battle to gain a buff.

I do NOT want the Diablo style slap-the-spacebar potion drinking. I thought that was a huge flaw in Diablo and don't want that in D&D. I don't mind tapping an internal and personal ability like Second Wind as an instant, but not using a physical item that has to be dug out of a bag, opened, sucked down and then wait for it to activate.

As for the Leader class, it is a STUPID title for all the forementioned reasons. It is a terrible name especially since the Leader powers seem much more about Support than Leadership. It will totally confuse noobs.

However, I did play in a Dave Arneson game where the PC with the highest CHA was made the leader of the party. This was actually a fun and weirdly interesting way to play for a one-shot.

 

[Primal]

"Name" of Class Role =! Personality type. Just because you chose to play a class that fulfills the "leader" role, does not make your character a leader (of the party or anyone else for that matter).

So why are they called 'Leaders'? Why are they not called 'Buffers', then?

 

[hong]

As for the Leader class, it is a STUPID title for all the forementioned reasons. It is a terrible name especially since the Leader powers seem much more about Support than Leadership. It will totally confuse noobs.

The paragon in Guild Wars is precisely a support-style character with a "leader" schtick. He even shouts stuff all the time! And they seem to work fine.