Should Every Class Have a "Leader" Build Option?

By "leader" I mean a coordinator or facilitator, someone who specializes in buffing, or team-mate facilitation, or some combination thereof.  I'm not advocating for any strict adherence to roles like 4e had, just for certain build options that allow those who want to build characters with defined roles, or (more interestingly) a mix of roles.

A lot of fire's been flying since the Blood of Gruumsh podcast revealed the (current, tentative) plans to collapse the warlord into the fighter.  As a big warlord fan, I was skeptical but not totally put off by this idea.  I could see it working if properly implemented, and I actually kind of like the idea of adding the option for having a tactically shrewd and/or high-Int fighter.  However, the fighter class is already pretty broad, and I can't see the devs making a whole suite of "warlord specialties" that could do justice to the depth of the archetype/concept.

So why not allow others to take up the burden of the "leader" role?  Coordinator, facilitator, "heavy support," whatever you want to call it, shouldn't every class be able to do things to aid team mates and facilitate group play?  Some examples from the other non-caster classes: a rogue could have skill tricks to create openings or opportunities for allies to exploit; a ranger could take advantage of terrain and environment to give bonuses to allies (like the Hunter from Iron Heroes, who was very warlord-like); a barbarian could inspire allies with his ferocity (like the thaneborn build, only moreso).  The list goes on, and it's far easier to envision with casters and semi-casters -- inspiring Paladin, anyone?

I'm not saying every class should have such options (but most should), and I'm definitetly not saying these should be anything but optional.  To quote a quip I once heard to describe the 4e warlord: "A barbarian hits you with his greataxe; a warlord hits you with his barbarian."

I want my barbarian to hit you with his wizard.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

In general, I'd certainly be in favor of more consideration, when designing class features, of the fact that most D&D characters spend the overwhelming majority of their combat lives fighting alongside others. For a system where that's always been the case, there's fairly little teamwork built into either the game or the abilities of the classes it includes. Now, there's all kinds of natural teamwork, especially if you have a broad enough definition of it (like, I guess two people attacking and killing a monster together is "teamwork" in the form of focused fire), but most character options that acknowledge the existence of other friendly characters in any way whatsoever are overtly magical buffs that are in most cases most useful when cast out of combat entirely. There's a few systemic things; there's flanking, for one, the ability to apply first aid, and the usually-inefficient Aid Another action.

Rather than an overt leadery direction, I'd almost rather that, when designing class features and abilities, one of the things that they think a lot about is "are there interesting ways that this character type could interact mechanically with allies in combat?" (They're probably already thinking about it to some degree, which is nice.)

I don't mean to imply that this is something that's entirely absent from D&D's history, or even from the Next packet, which has several ally-conscious abilities present. I just think that it's something I'd like to continue to see more and more of.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Maybe, but if that's the case, then party Roles really should be an additional mechanical layer (but separate from Specialties, since they'd interfere with people wanting to specialise in abilities like herbalism or inquisitiveness or having a familiar or something. 

Instead, I would suggest that if it makes sense for a class, then it should have it.  I think it makes sense for the Fighter.  I don't think it makes sense for the Monk.  I don't think it makes sense for the Sorcerer, but I do think it makes sense for the Warlock (Witches and their healing medicines and such). 

Other classes might not tend towards other roles.  Bards don't really tend towards damage-dealing, and that's fine.  I don't think they should.  Same thing with Wizards – they don't tend towards "defending" and I don't think they should.   But they could always take the Guardian Specialty if they wanted to add a layer like that on.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Simple Answer:  Yes.


That said - I think that what constitutes a leader for each class may vary considerably and 'leader' does not mean 'healer'.


The healer side of the equation ought to be a specialty.  I'd like to see a specialty that has '4E leader' feats (non-magical healing, etc.).


The other classes could then have a build designed to focus on aiding and encouraging the other characters.  A rogue might harass and harry the opponent, granting its allies advantage, a wizard might have tradition powers and use spells designed to buff his allies and even move them around the battlefield, a fighter might have maneuvers designed to create openings with his attacks, etc.


Carl         
Mabey not every class. But most classes should have team/leader options. Same as there should be damage, defense, and utility options in most classes.

Wizards have haste (leader), fireball (damage), and flight (utility), and stoneskin (defense).

Of course some classes will be more focused then others. Like rogues being damage/utility, Fighters damage/defense, bards as support/utility, and warlords as support/damage.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

This is a really interesting question. I don't know the answer. But I love the question.
I believe a resounding "Yes". Heck, just looking at the core 4, and using 4E terms:

Leader Cleric is a healer oriented cleric
Leader Fighter is like a warlord
Leader Rogue is a back of the lines warlord, like an archer or just a straight inspirer and tactician.
Leader Wizard is an abjurer, bolstering allies with buffs. 

Poe's Law is alive and well.

By "leader" I mean a coordinator or facilitator, someone who specializes in buffing, or team-mate facilitation, or some combination thereof.  I'm not advocating for any strict adherence to roles like 4e had, just for certain build options that allow those who want to build characters with defined roles, or (more interestingly) a mix of roles.

If there's no particular meaning to the role, then, sure, any class could fill any role.  But I don't think that's what you're getting at.

I don't think it's a bad idea, even (maybe especially) if you had roles as well-defined as 4e did.  But, I do think it'd be problematic under the 5e class design paradigm, which is 'concept first' (mechanics later, balance 'meh').  Class concepts are justified by being in D&D a while or appearing in a certain book, so some are broad (fighter) others narrow (bard) or arbitrary (sorcerer) or hidebound (cleric) or whatever.  

Now, if the classes were all quite broad, there'd be a lot of room to customize one class, and you could have each class avail it of the same (or variations on the same) 'role' options.  

Essentially classes would become like 4e sources (martial, divine, arcane) or 0D&D classes (fighter, cleric, magic-user).  

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I don't see why any class in the game could not function as a leader (and I don't mean a healer). So I don't think there should be any predefined "roles." I don't know that it needs a mechanic at all. I don't need any feats or class features to be inspiring and tactical.

I think all classes should fill all roles in some way. Not all characters should though, and not all classes should fill all roles best. It's OK for one class to naturally act as a better defender than another, but there should be sufficient options available to make a class that doesn't lend itself to a tank role to become a tank.


Same goes for leaders.



EDIT: The healing thing gets sticky. I don't think all classes should heal, or that "healer" should necessarily be a role on its own. The definition of "role" has a lot of impact on our answers here. Classes that don't actually restore HP should probably have certain options that help keep folks alive through mitigation and such. Apart from non combat recovery, the line between replenishing HP and stopping HP from being lost in the first place is pretty fine.

Everything you just said ammounts to make it a specialization...you realize that right.  If no one class can claim it it becomes a specialty.  A specialty also makes the design easier.  What your talking about is making it a specialty dude.  Just saying

Any class could have some sort of tactical support.


But actually being a "leader" is in the realm of role-playing, not rules. 
I don't know that it needs a mechanic at all. I don't need any feats or class features to be inspiring and tactical.



Useless ... "I am not my character.. I do not have its abilities.. repeat, remember and absorb... Excluding somebody from playing a character tht is not like themselves needs to be dropped in a trash can.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Absolutely...

I do think every class should have 'options' (be it maneuvers, spells or what have you) that have 'leader-esk' qualities to it.

I hated 4Es 'assumed' role design. Character Class and Race should purely define the character and not how he participates as a 'role' in combat.

Not every Cleric has to play the 'leader' , some may prefer to be 'controlers' by casting spells such as hold person and some may prefer to be 'defenders' by buffing themselves and going into melee.

Same goes for every class... naturally some fit better roles then others but ultimately it should be up to the player and not the mechanics that decide how they wish to contribute to a fight.
I don't know that it needs a mechanic at all. I don't need any feats or class features to be inspiring and tactical.



Useless ... "I am not my character.. I do not have its abilities.. repeat, remember and absorb... Excluding somebody from playing a character tht is not like themselves needs to be dropped in a trash can.



Not what I meant at all. I am not a charismatic person whatsoever, but that doesn't limit my character from being an effective leader anyway if I want him to, and I don't need any special "role" to play it that way. You could play a leader as a Fighter with unerring courage, or a Barbarian who just never gives up, or a Wizard leading the charge from the back lines with brilliant tactics, or a Cleric with the power of a deity behind them, a Paladin crusading against evil at all costs, a Ranger who can navigate the wilderness better than anyone and keeps the rest alive, a Rogue who can talk his way out of anything and always finds the most cunning solution, there are no limits to what a leader can be. That is all I mean, we don't need specific builds or paths for a character to be a leader.
Everything you just said ammounts to make it a specialization...you realize that right.  If no one class can claim it it becomes a specialty.  A specialty also makes the design easier.  What your talking about is making it a specialty dude.  Just saying

Actually, I think specialties need to be defined as something that either A) enhances your existing capabilities or B) gives you an edge in a different area of capability (i.e. a different "role").

Some already work that way.  The Protector Fighting Style has defender abilities, which can be enhanced by the Defender specialty, or complemented by some other specialty that gives abilities of a different nature.

So there should probably be a "Tactician" specialty, or something like that, and another specialty that allows you to inspire your allies, but that doesn't mean that other classes shouldn't have internal options to "specialize" in those things.  Obviously a bard should be able to inspire without taking a specialty to do so; taking an inspiring specialty would merely add to his/her capabilities.  Likewise, a cleric or a druid should be able to focus on healing without necessarily taking a healing specialty.  As it stands, many classes can use class options to focus on damage, and can then also take a damage-focused specialty, or else some other specialty.

You seem to be implying that a specialty does something that class options don't, but I don't see any evidence for that.

Edit: There's also A LOT of room for various different forms of bolstering and support, and different mechanics for them based on the classes in which they originate.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

I don't know that it needs a mechanic at all. I don't need any feats or class features to be inspiring and tactical.



Useless ... "I am not my character.. I do not have its abilities.. repeat, remember and absorb... Excluding somebody from playing a character tht is not like themselves needs to be dropped in a trash can.



Not what I meant at all. I am not a charismatic person whatsoever,


I am not a tactical master .... but I can play one... but not if you get your way, since you are insisting I cant have the mechanics that actually enable it.


but that doesn't limit my character from being an effective leader anyway if I want him to, and I don't need any special "role" to play it that way.


Effective leadership has very real effects that you are apparently ignorant of..

You could play a leader as a Fighter with unerring courage,


till you are forced by a failed save to do things like run for your life ...the games mechanics have meaning and very much affect the things you can accomplish and have dones so since 1e.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I don't see why any class in the game could not function as a leader (and I don't mean a healer). So I don't think there should be any predefined "roles." I don't know that it needs a mechanic at all. I don't need any feats or class features to be inspiring and tactical.

Actually, to have any sort of actual impact on what is happening, you do need some kind of feat/feature/ability to be inspiring or tactical. If I want to tactically help my allies, I can talk at the game table, or even in character say, "hey, move over there and we can flank him!" or something similar, but nothing I say is going to change someone's attack roll, or damage roll, or Temp HP or whatever. In 2nd or 3rd, if I tried to say "I give up my move so that Danny's rogue can move" or "I use my tactical brilliance to point out an opening to Dave's fighter so he can attack the monster in my stead" since the fighter hits harder, the DM would say "No." And not many reasonable people would say that's not right; the way the game is written really doesn't allow that. And even if the DM took pity and allowed it once, then the next time when it's not allowed will confuse the player.

The same goes with inspiration. I can come up with my best William Wallace impersonation, and the DM and other players may high-five me for doing a good job, but it's not going to give my allies a +2 on attack rolls or a bunch of Temp HP. And again, even if the DM decided to hand out a bonus, what bonus would that be? How often can you inspire like that? Can other characters do that too? If you had a dozen DMs you would find a dozen different answers. That is why if we are going to have characters inspire others to help them or give actual tactical advantage due to expertise, then it has to be in the rules.
Not what I meant at all. I am not a charismatic person whatsoever, but that doesn't limit my character from being an effective leader anyway if I want him to, and I don't need any special "role" to play it that way. You could play a leader as a Fighter with unerring courage, or a Barbarian who just never gives up, or a Wizard leading the charge from the back lines with brilliant tactics, or a Cleric with the power of a deity behind them, a Paladin crusading against evil at all costs, a Ranger who can navigate the wilderness better than anyone and keeps the rest alive, a Rogue who can talk his way out of anything and always finds the most cunning solution, there are no limits to what a leader can be. That is all I mean, we don't need specific builds or paths for a character to be a leader.


You do know that people here are talking about the Leader role, which is a defined game term, and not the common language term meaning "guy in charge", right?
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.

Any class could have some sort of tactical support.


But actually being a "leader" is in the realm of role-playing, not rules. 



"Leader: in 4E terms was the mechanical role the character had vs. "leader" the role a character might have as party "face" and just like so many words in English, there's an imporatant distinction in meanings.

Take the movie "Van Helsing". Carl is the mechanical leader role (artificer) as he's creating weapons and gadgets to make Van Helsing better in combat.  But in social situations, Van Helsing is the "leader" (re:face) of their team even though he's the "fighter".  

By "leader" I mean a coordinator or facilitator, someone who specializes in buffing, or team-mate facilitation, or some combination thereof.  I'm not advocating for any strict adherence to roles like 4e had, just for certain build options that allow those who want to build characters with defined roles, or (more interestingly) a mix of roles.

A lot of fire's been flying since the Blood of Gruumsh podcast revealed the (current, tentative) plans to collapse the warlord into the fighter.  As a big warlord fan, I was skeptical but not totally put off by this idea.  I could see it working if properly implemented, and I actually kind of like the idea of adding the option for having a tactically shrewd and/or high-Int fighter.  However, the fighter class is already pretty broad, and I can't see the devs making a whole suite of "warlord specialties" that could do justice to the depth of the archetype/concept.

So why not allow others to take up the burden of the "leader" role?  Coordinator, facilitator, "heavy support," whatever you want to call it, shouldn't every class be able to do things to aid team mates and facilitate group play?  Some examples from the other non-caster classes: a rogue could have skill tricks to create openings or opportunities for allies to exploit; a ranger could take advantage of terrain and environment to give bonuses to allies (like the Hunter from Iron Heroes, who was very warlord-like); a barbarian could inspire allies with his ferocity (like the thaneborn build, only moreso).  The list goes on, and it's far easier to envision with casters and semi-casters -- inspiring Paladin, anyone?

I'm not saying every class should have such options (but most should), and I'm definitetly not saying these should be anything but optional.  To quote a quip I once heard to describe the 4e warlord: "A barbarian hits you with his greataxe; a warlord hits you with his barbarian."

I want my barbarian to hit you with his wizard.



Yes, every character should have the option of multiclassing into Warlord
We should probably say "support" instead of "leader".  To make people feel better.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

We should probably say "support" instead of "leader".  To make people feel better.



And therein lies the problem. "Support" and "Leader" are two completely different things, and what 4E considers a Leader I would better call Support. I don't think of a leader as a healer.
We should probably say "support" instead of "leader".  To make people feel better.



And therein lies the problem. "Support" and "Leader" are two completely different things, and what 4E considers a Leader I would better call Support. I don't think of a leader as a healer.


"I help my allies succeed" vs "I use my allies to succeed".

It just depends on who want's to take credit.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Yes, every character should have the option of multiclassing into Warlord

You may have missed the part where I described how I can easily imagine mechanics that would work well for specific classes, such as team-oriented skill tricks for rogues.  Or at any rate, you fail to see the awesome potential of giving the majority of classes options for their own class-appropriate leader-schtick.

If we're not getting a true warlord class, then we can spread the burden of what made the warlord cool among the other classes, making for many potential warlord-like builds with interesting and different mechanics, rather than just having one build of fighter.  And by extension, why not give other classes those kinds of options too?

We should probably say "support" instead of "leader".  To make people feel better.

And therein lies the problem. "Support" and "Leader" are two completely different things, and what 4E considers a Leader I would better call Support. I don't think of a leader as a healer.

I'm using leader because it has a formal definition in at least one edition; support doesn't have a definition in any edition.  I think most people on these boards know what I mean when I use the term (plus I expounded on what I meant in the OP, just to make things clear), so let's not get into an argument about semantics just because we can.

Besides, the healing part of leader isn't even the interesting part or the part I'm talking about.  It's all the other things that really make it a "leader," and those are what I'm focusing on.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

Personally I'm not a fan of 'builds' at all. The class is the class for us in D&D. Since we don't use feats, skills, backgrounds, etc I'm not sure how that could work. I'm all for options that others like however...as long as it doesn't restrict/interfere with us.


As long as the class has some kind of ability that offers choice, you can create build options.  For example a leader build could exist for the wizard through choice of spells, for the fighter through a choice of maneuvers (which they probably need more of), and for the rogue through skill tricks.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Meh. I can take it or leave it. I would prefer to have it be a matter of "if you want this role, simply take a class that already caters to it", personally.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

I agree. To benefit from roles and builds you would have to bake it into the class structure, and that goes counter to current 5E design. Plus you would need to include more roles, like striker, defender, controller, and many find that too limiting, even if the terms are used in the broadest sense.
Personally I'm not a fan of 'builds' at all. The class is the class for us in D&D. Since we don't use feats, skills, backgrounds, etc I'm not sure how that could work. I'm all for options that others like however...as long as it doesn't restrict/interfere with us.


As long as the class has some kind of ability that offers choice, you can create build options.  For example a leader build could exist for the wizard through choice of spells, for the fighter through a choice of maneuvers (which they probably need more of), and for the rogue through skill tricks.



*shrug* just not our thing really. It's how you roleplay it, not what mechanics it has for us. We prefer to pick race, class, and equipment and then give everyone the same options apart from those things.



So you roleplay spell selection... and the fighter gets to share in that plentitude of options... 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I believe it is a mistake to think of RPG characters as "support" or "dps" or "tank" or whatever. They are terms of convenience that work well for the very narrow avatars of computer games but do more harm than good when applied to pen and paper RPG characters.

To answer the OP: to take healing as an example. i dont mind if only a few classes can do this, and others not at all. Equally i dont mind if there are degrees of healing across all classes. I do not want to see an equally viable healer across all classes however. I think healing capability is a useful tool among many to differentiate/balance classes.
I believe it is a mistake to think of RPG characters as "support" or "dps" or "tank" or whatever. They are terms of convenience that work well for the very narrow avatars of computer games but do more harm than good when applied to pen and paper RPG characters. To answer the OP: to take healing as an example. i dont mind if only a few classes can do this, and others not at all. Equally i dont mind if there are degrees of healing across all classes. I do not want to see an equally viable healer across all classes however. I think healing capability is a useful tool among many to differentiate/balance classes.



Actually, the roles for computer RPG comes from the roles of the characters in Table Top RPG. Talking about combat terms, yes I think it's viable to talk about roles of the characters. But I don't mind about some classes being better at certain roles.

Yes, every character should have the option of multiclassing into Warlord

You may have missed the part where I described how I can easily imagine mechanics that would work well for specific classes, such as team-oriented skill tricks for rogues. Or at any rate, you fail to see the awesome potential of giving the majority of classes options for their own class-appropriate leader-schtick. If we're not getting a true warlord class, then we can spread the burden of what made the warlord cool among the other classes, making for many potential warlord-like builds with interesting and different mechanics, rather than just having one build of fighter. And by extension, why not give other classes those kinds of options too?
We should probably say "support" instead of "leader". To make people feel better.

And therein lies the problem. "Support" and "Leader" are two completely different things, and what 4E considers a Leader I would better call Support. I don't think of a leader as a healer.

I'm using leader because it has a formal definition in at least one edition; support doesn't have a definition in any edition. I think most people on these boards know what I mean when I use the term (plus I expounded on what I meant in the OP, just to make things clear), so let's not get into an argument about semantics just because we can. Besides, the healing part of leader isn't even the interesting part or the part I'm talking about. It's all the other things that really make it a "leader," and those are what I'm focusing on.



What about if someone doesn't like the idea of not having a warlord class? Really I don't think that was a smart move, specially talking about the popularity of the class. But yes, with multiclass we can have builds like X-class/warlord.

Edit: Also having leaderish builds for every class does not removes the warlord from play. It's like saying that we don't need to have the Cleric class because we alreeady have the Mystical Healer specialty.
To answer the OP... No, I don't think so.  If you're restricting classes to the Core Four, fighters and clerics make sense having a "leader" role, rogues and wizards do not: Sure, those classes can engage in a thing called teamwork, but thematically they don't coordinate, lead, or otherwise help other people more than they help themselves.

If you're extending classes past F/W/C/R, I have a feeling it would stick at about 50/50 for possession of the Leader role, with a bias against 'magic' classes being able to perform it.  So far in Next we've seen Monk, Sorcerer, Barbarian, and Warlock.  Of these, Warlocks aren't leaders in the least, Monks probably could be.  Barbarians would have a moderatley difficult time steppign into the role, while Sorcerers might never be able to do it (though I could see "Angelic" sorcerers taking on leader traits like Draconic we've seen take on fighterish traits)

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

To answer the OP... No, I don't think so.  If you're restricting classes to the Core Four, fighters and clerics make sense having a "leader" role, rogues and wizards do not

A mage couldn't concentrate on buffing spells in battle, and use divination to help him formulate plans and strategies that his allies carry out?  A cunning opportunist couldn't aid and direct his allies in battle or decieve his foes into playing into those allies' hands?

Not that the rogue need even be there.  If Gandalf, Skeeve, Harry Potter and Samantha Stevens can all be the same class, then Conan, Sir Lancelot, Grey Mouser, and Cudgel the Clever can all be the same class.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

As I said, teamwork is still possible without being a dedicated "leader"  As such, what I'm looking for is an overall theme.  An opportunist rogue is more of a 'CC' or 'Controller' than a leader, While the archetype for a wizard is not, usually, a people-person.  Divination might exist, but in the heat of combat, the wizard is slowing, snaring, or blasting at ehemies, and not who anyone looks to.  That's not really the "Right stuff" for a leader.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

As I said, teamwork is still possible without being a dedicated "leader"  As such, what I'm looking for is an overall theme.  An opportunist rogue is more of a 'CC' or 'Controller' than a leader, While the archetype for a wizard is not, usually, a people-person.

What about directing others to opportunities or using opportunities to set them up, or instigating?  I suppose the lines between roles can be blurred.  A de-buff is just the flip side of a buff, in function.  

For the wizard, yes, wizard archetypes are often very much 'people-persons'  - viziers and advisors, heads of organizations, rulers in a magocracy.  And, in genre, he's always the exposition guy, telling the hero exactly how to get the mcguffin or kill the dragon or whatever.

Divination might exist, but in the heat of combat, the wizard is slowing, snaring, or blasting at ehemies, and not who anyone looks to.  That's not really the "Right stuff" for a leader.

Or, even using traditional D&D spells, the wizard could be hasting allies, casting Strength on the fighter and Cat's Grace on the rogue, turning allies invisible, teleporting them.  

The Artificer, which can outright heal, if only by making potions, would also fold into the wizard under a minimal-class system.   The bard might fold into either rogue or wizard. 


I think, once you get down to three (the rogue needn't be one of them) or four broad classes, each might as well be able to fill any role, whether 4e formal role, or traditional informal role.  A Cleric of Kord might go toe-to-toe, an archer stick to the back lines, an abjurer focus on protecting his friends and so forth.








 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I think a lot of classes could be translated into that such as rogues, fighters, clerics, sorcerors and wizards. The rogue could be many things and has a variety of builds that gives the versality of optional paths to take. The cleric is very similar as well and could have many builds. The wizard has the option as well except through spells. You could easily have a leader wizard who preps spells for use on his/her team-mates. The fighter also has that option in the form of someone who knows tactics and leads the party through fighting. I wouldn't think that the sorceror has to be a leader but its usually seen as 'the face' because its normally charisma-based as a class. 

Personally, I hate built-in roles and roles should be decided on how a player plays and not chosen based on the class they choose. Its one thing I hated about 4th ed. I don't want to be the face just because my character has the charisma, etc.  
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
Thing is, people, none of this builds eliminates the place of the Warlord. The Mystical Healer Specialty does not eliminate the Cleric.

Personally for me having lots of classes is a good thing. So I don't like this talk of only three/four classes. I do not think that all classes should be equally good at all roles, although.
the role of party leader should be an organic one deided on by the group of players, it shouldnt be backed up with all these silly abilities. the reason the warlord class is gone from the game is due to there being no real need for it. all the buffs and moving characters thru squares are not needed with a simple core system. im happy they decided to go another route with this.
the role of party leader should be an organic one deided on by the group of players, it shouldnt be backed up with all these silly abilities.


Mike, you seem to (intentionally or not) be too caught up in the name.  A 4e character with the leader role wasn't automatically the leader of the party in game.  The same way that striker characters weren't just characters only capable of interacting with the world by striking people and things.

the reason the warlord class is gone from the game is due to there being no real need for it. all the buffs and moving characters thru squares are not needed with a simple core system. im happy they decided to go another route with this.


The warlord class isn't gone.  They are experimenting with making it a specialty.  They may decide to go that route or not, but (to the best of my awareness) they haven't made a solid announcement that is decidedly dead and gone.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I believe it is a mistake to think of RPG characters as "support" or "dps" or "tank" or whatever. They are terms of convenience that work well for the very narrow avatars of computer games but do more harm than good when applied to pen and paper RPG characters.

As I expressly stated, I'm not advocating giving any official weight to party "roles."  I'm just using the term "leader" as a convenient shorthand -- which is all its really ever been.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with party coordination, which roles help facilitate... they don't define your character.  Even in 4e, your role was only one of the many things that made up your character: you had your class, race, feats, and many other purely RP factors like eye color, temperament, maybe a keen taste for orcish harp music or an insatiable need to paint your equipment cobalt blue.  With a modicum of imagination, your character should always be more than the sum of his/her parts.  That goes for as in any TTRPG.

To answer the OP: to take healing as an example. i dont mind if only a few classes can do this, and others not at all. Equally i dont mind if there are degrees of healing across all classes. I do not want to see an equally viable healer across all classes however. I think healing capability is a useful tool among many to differentiate/balance classes.

Yeah... again, not really talking about healing.  Healing is only one narrow aspect of the "leader" role as it was defined in 4e, and probably the least interesting.  Some classes should have the option to heal as part of their "leader" or "support" role schtick, others should be able to grant actions, mitigate damage, facilitate movement, buff allies with bonuses or THP, etcetera, or any combination of a number of those things, as appropriate to the given class.

To answer the OP... No, I don't think so.  If you're restricting classes to the Core Four, fighters and clerics make sense having a "leader" role, rogues and wizards do not: Sure, those classes can engage in a thing called teamwork, but thematically they don't coordinate, lead, or otherwise help other people more than they help themselves.

I disagree.  A rogue can easily be a leader, both in the 4e sense and in the sense of being the party "face."  A dashing swashbuckler or cunning duelist need not be a fighter, and such a rogue could use skill tricks to facilitate ally actions and let allies exploit opportunities; a Charismatic one could even inspire allies, granting bonuses or THP.  A wizard could focus on buffing and shielding the party, and likewise facilitating actions.  You don't need to be the guy shouting orders to fill that niche in the party combat-dynamic.  In fact, you don't have to say anything, or even be likeable.

If you're extending classes past F/W/C/R, I have a feeling it would stick at about 50/50 for possession of the Leader role, with a bias against 'magic' classes being able to perform it.  So far in Next we've seen Monk, Sorcerer, Barbarian, and Warlock.  Of these, Warlocks aren't leaders in the least, Monks probably could be.  Barbarians would have a moderatley difficult time steppign into the role, while Sorcerers might never be able to do it (though I could see "Angelic" sorcerers taking on leader traits like Draconic we've seen take on fighterish traits)

Again, I disagree with your specific examples (though I admit there are probably classes for which leader-type abilities wouldn't work).  The Vestige Pact Warlock in 4e as had some really cool and interesing leader-like schtick that I'd love to see in DDN.  Barbarians also had the Thaneborn build; and if it "doesn't make sense" for a barbarian to lead by example and boost the party morale with his dauntless ferocity and force of will, I'll eat my greatclub.

Thing is, people, none of this builds eliminates the place of the Warlord. The Mystical Healer Specialty does not eliminate the Cleric. Personally for me having lots of classes is a good thing. So I don't like this talk of only three/four classes. I do not think that all classes should be equally good at all roles, although.

Never said it eliminates the place of the warlord.  I'm just advocating that, if WotC does eliminate it as its own separate class, as they've said they may, the things that made it cool will need to be preserved in multiple other classes (not just one) in order to do it justice.  Heck, I'd like leader options for (nearly) everyone even if warlord does make it in as a class of its own.

the role of party leader should be an organic one deided on by the group of players, it shouldnt be backed up with all these silly abilities. the reason the warlord class is gone from the game is due to there being no real need for it. all the buffs and moving characters thru squares are not needed with a simple core system. im happy they decided to go another route with this.

You're conflating the roleplaying role of leader with the mechanical, 4e-styel role of leader.  I went out of my way to be clear I'm talking about the latter.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

  Heck, I'd like leader options for (nearly) everyone even if warlord does make it in as a class of its own.
 



Or everyman abilities that go beyond doing a simple "Help" action (which is rather effective if bland)... and ways folk can get better at them ;p
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Sign In to post comments