WotC_Shoe on leaderless parties

[Campbell]

Please find a source for this. I haven't seen it anywhere, and it makes a huge difference for gameplay.

What they've actually said is that potions mostly focus on healing effects. That being said I doubt we'll see potions acting as a substitute for class abilities in the same way that 3e potions often served as a spell casting substitute. It runs contrary to the emphasis being placed on a character's capabilities over magic items.

Potions: Potions are consumable items, and they're mostly focused on healing effects.

 

[small pumpkin man]

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?).

You're jumping between leader and Warlord here, and it's messing up your point. A Warlod who is neither inspiring, nor tactically knowledgeable is kind of strange idea, however a leader who is neither of those is very easy to imagine, there's nothing strange or out there about a surly priest of Wee Jas (or a dumb priest of Kord) who provides buffing and healing purely through magic, and inspires no-one, just like a cowardly Fighter or Paladin might be a bot strange, but a hypothetical defender class which relies on their pet to some or much the actual defending is much easier to imagine.

Roles supply almost no fluff, Classes are a different story.

 

[Wolfwood2]

But mostly, I like it as a DM. It means my NPC bad guys can drink and still keep fighting!

Whenever the bad guys drink a potion in a game I'm in, all the players immediately shout, "Noooo! Stop drinking our treasure!"

 

[Sphyre]

Or one every odd level plus one for being human.

Very well could be...

...If humans still have a bonus feat. But obviously with feats being more common in 4e, it may not be as powerful to get a bonus feat. As such, I'm open to the idea that humans may, in fact, not get a bonus feat.

We'll just have to see.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Very well could be...

...If humans still have a bonus feat.

In the Ampersand Rogue writeup it has this:

Suggested Feat: Weapon Focus (Human feat: Toughness)
...

Suggested Feat: Backstabber (Human feat: Human Perseverance)

Which makes it look like humans still get an extra feat at 1st.

 

[MaelStorm]

In the Ampersand Rogue writeup it has this:

Which makes it look like humans still get an extra feat at 1st.

You're faster than me. I was just going to point up the same thing.

 

[Campbell]

Beaten to the punch.

 

[Sphyre]

Which makes it look like humans still get an extra feat at 1st.

Oops. Completely forgot about that. Thanks for the catch.