party composition help

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hey would like some advice about which leader to take (would like one that leans towards striker As a second role)

We have in the party

chaladin (built tanky)
rogue ( cunning sneek hovers in mid range )
Druid(caster)
???(me)

I'm leaning towards a panther shaman but I don't know too much about leaders so if is gona be quite a missfit for the party I'd like to know
The answer is always warlord.  Except in this case, you don't have many good MBAs, and you're light on mele, so you probably want something mid-range with good buffing, so Artificer actually fits nicely, particularly as the party is definitely light on INT at present.

So, what this boils down to is Killswitch (Hybrid Warlord/Artificer).
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
What's a chaladin? Was that a typo or a combination of Charismatic & Paladin?

Anyhoo... It all depends on what kind of campaign you think you'll be on.

Wilderness adventures? You have a druid, add a ranger.

City intrigue/stealth? You have a rogue, another won't hurt... focus on different skills, though.

Lots of combat? Well, the barbarian might get along with the druid or he might be a mercenary-type who knows the rogue from his time in the rogue's home city. A fighter might get along better with the paladin. So might a priest... but the druid likely has that corner of the market in this party.

As far as who the leader is... umm, lol... which one has the highest Charisma score? Can the player pull it off? If you want to be magnanimous, you could change the role of leader depending on where you're at... the Druid might make a better leader in the wilderness bandit kingdoms, the rogue might do better in the slums of a city, the chaladin takes the lead when you all go report to the Grand Poo-Bah or what-have-you.


I didn't see anything that tells me the party is light on INT... and the thief was called cunning... BUT... I do see you don't have an arcane caster, so sorcerer or wizard would be a good addition to this party. Without any indication as to what kind of campaign you're in, there's really no way to give a good answer. If it was oriental, I'd say you need a samurai, for instance... or at least a fighter who can look the part.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Chaladin is an extremely old term used for Paladins who have charisma as a primary ability score.  Surprised you don't know the term.

By the term Leader, he's asking what leader archtype he should play.  In 4e there's categories:  Leader, Defender, Striker, Controller.  The rogues a striker, the chaladin is a defender, the druid is a controller.

Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe I think your missing that this was a 4E related question and most of your statements don't make sense in that context.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Chaladin is an extremely old term used for Paladins who have charisma as a primary ability score.  Surprised you don't know the term.

By the term Leader, he's asking what leader archtype he should play.  In 4e there's categories:  Leader, Defender, Striker, Controller.  The rogues a striker, the chaladin is a defender, the druid is a controller.

Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe I think your missing that this was a 4E related question and most of your statements don't make sense in that context.

Stupid computer deleted my response.

Long story short:

Never heard chaladin, but figured it was a portmanteau.

No, I got that it was 4E. I have actually played that edition. I understand the Leader/Defender/Striker/Smacker/Flipper concept... it's arbitrary. A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. A druid with the right spells can be a striker or summon elementals to aid the party, thus making the druid more of a Leader. So on. Why's a paladin a defender, and not a leader? Someone lost a coin flip at WOTC. Sir Paladin the Defender sounded better than Sir Chaladin the Leader. Missing that jean a sais quoi (sic).

OP should play what he wants to role-play. This party is quite diverse. Druid, Rogue, Paladin? So little in common. What is their common bond? Find that... be that...think like that on the battle field, help them achieve that common goal and be both a leader in every sense of the word.



A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
I still think you may be confusing the plain English word "leader" with the gamespeak term "Leader," which has a definition in 4e (grants its allies bonuses to attack rolls, damage rolls, defenses, or other statistics, plus heals). Charisma (the ability score) also has little to do with being the leader or being a Leader, except in the case of the latter where it applies to game mechanics (e.g. a bard).

Mechanics and roleplaying are only as related as a player wants them to be. Just ask my dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks gladiator wizard, Brick. (He's taken a few hits to the noggin.)

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I still think you may be confusing the plain English word "leader" with the gamespeak term "Leader," which has a definition in 4e (grants its allies bonuses to attack rolls, damage rolls, defenses, or other statistics, plus heals). Charisma (the ability score) also has little to do with being the leader or being a Leader, except in the case of the latter where it applies to game mechanics (e.g. a bard).

Mechanics and roleplaying are only as related as a player wants them to be. Just ask my dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks gladiator wizard, Brick. (He's taken a few hits to the noggin.)

I understand the distinction. Even the gamespeak book description of each of these terms admits in the assignation that not all (gamespeak) Leaders are particularly good at certain aspects of that role. Those roles, clearly defined (for what I feel are only marginally less than arbitrary and potentially limiting to role-playing) can be filled by most character classes, though some are more natural fits, of course.

To pick a class with the express purpose to fill in that role can be useful, but isn't the be-all-end-all. Sure, if you have nobody in the party who can heal, you could use a healer, which is an important aspect of the Leader role. A wizard can pick spells that fill in other aspects of that role. My terminology for a Leader, by this definition is whoever is casting the buff spells. A wizard can choose to pick spells that boost the party, thus making a wizard-Leader (although weak in healing).

A fourth character generally needs to be an all-purpose guy, assuming the other 3 are fairly diverse (in this case they are). The paladin can lay on hands, the druid can heal and the rogue isn't likely to be toe-to-toe, so it sounds like the heal aspect is covered.

More briefly: The gamespeak classifications of Leader, etc. are merely intended to point out that different character classes do different stuff and a diverse party will have characters that are good at diverse things. I think people tend to get way too caught up in the minutiae and forget the purpose they are trying to achieve.

I'd say Bard or Priest ultimately fill the Leader role best as far as core classes (although I don't recall if there are bards in 4e and I'm not sure if that's "supposed to be" their roles.

For that purpose, I recommend Bard, even though I prefer Cleric/Priest.

I still say to the OP, play what you want. You'll find a way to make it work...
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
I understand the distinction. Even the gamespeak book description of each of these terms admits in the assignation that not all (gamespeak) Leaders are particularly good at certain aspects of that role. Those roles, clearly defined (for what I feel are only marginally less than arbitrary and potentially limiting to role-playing) can be filled by most character classes, though some are more natural fits, of course.

To pick a class with the express purpose to fill in that role can be useful, but isn't the be-all-end-all. Sure, if you have nobody in the party who can heal, you could use a healer, which is an important aspect of the Leader role. A wizard can pick spells that fill in other aspects of that role. My terminology for a Leader, by this definition is whoever is casting the buff spells. A wizard can choose to pick spells that boost the party, thus making a wizard-Leader (although weak in healing).



Yes, that's true in many ways. I think most would find it a stark contrast mechanically speaking between a Leader and a build with a secondary role as Leader, however. In 3.X terms, it's a proper cleric versus a bard with a wand of cure light wounds, I guess. If the games are frequently about one side killing the other, this could be an issue.

I still say to the OP, play what you want. You'll find a way to make it work...



I agree, though I would still give some deference to the group. Some groups are firm believers in needing to have a Defender or Leader. I don't adhere to that myself. I see that belief as arising from not having one or more roles and still playing as if you do and then getting a bad result (death, defeat, or excessive expenditure of resources and/or game time). I'm a believer in going to war with the army you have, not the army you wished you had.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

(1) Warlord: Nobody in your party is STR-based and Athletics is a common skill check. Also, It would be good to have another "front-liner" to keep a wall between the baddies and your ranged rogue and druid (if he's staying in the back as a caster).

(2) Artificer: Your small party is light in the arcane/INT area. This leader would best fill that role.

(3) Shaman can be quite a tricky class to play since it has a companion. But since you're leaning that way, I'd say go4it. I would suggest Wood Elf (with Sense Threat) World Speaker Shaman. Your spirit helps lock down the baddies so they don't move around. Pick up Mark of Detection feat to roll Perception twice. Since you get to use a Perception Check in place of initiative, with Sense Threat you get to roll a d20 twice and choose the best. At level 1 you get a +12 (your perception score) almost always allowing you to act first (get your spirit out there) and your allies get +2 to their initiatives. Initiative becomes more critical the fewer PCs you have.

Just some suggestions. Take 'em or leave 'em. It'd be great to hear from you about what you decide. 
Stalker Shaman actually handles the INT pretty well too, and is a solid class, so you could do worse.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
To pick a class with the express purpose to fill in that role can be useful, but isn't the be-all-end-all. Sure, if you have nobody in the party who can heal, you could use a healer, which is an important aspect of the Leader role. A wizard can pick spells that fill in other aspects of that role. My terminology for a Leader, by this definition is whoever is casting the buff spells. A wizard can choose to pick spells that boost the party, thus making a wizard-Leader (although weak in healing).

[...]

More briefly: The gamespeak classifications of Leader, etc. are merely intended to point out that different character classes do different stuff and a diverse party will have characters that are good at diverse things. I think people tend to get way too caught up in the minutiae and forget the purpose they are trying to achieve.


While I appreciate your sentiment, 4th Edition doesn't work that way. Each class has powers that adhere to that class' role. Rangers don't have close blast pushing powers, Bards don't have double or triple attacks, and Wizards don't have powers that buff their allies. If you want to play a leader Wizard in 4E, you multiclass or hybrid with a leader class. 

A fourth character generally needs to be an all-purpose guy, assuming the other 3 are fairly diverse (in this case they are). The paladin can lay on hands, the druid can heal and the rogue isn't likely to be toe-to-toe, so it sounds like the heal aspect is covered.


4E Druids don't heal, Lay on Hands is really limited, and a lot of Rogue powers need them to be adjacent to enemies. Since you don't know what you're talking about, I suggest you stop trying to give advice until you do.
To pick a class with the express purpose to fill in that role can be useful, but isn't the be-all-end-all. Sure, if you have nobody in the party who can heal, you could use a healer, which is an important aspect of the Leader role. A wizard can pick spells that fill in other aspects of that role. My terminology for a Leader, by this definition is whoever is casting the buff spells. A wizard can choose to pick spells that boost the party, thus making a wizard-Leader (although weak in healing).

[...]

More briefly: The gamespeak classifications of Leader, etc. are merely intended to point out that different character classes do different stuff and a diverse party will have characters that are good at diverse things. I think people tend to get way too caught up in the minutiae and forget the purpose they are trying to achieve.


While I appreciate your sentiment, 4th Edition doesn't work that way. Each class has powers that adhere to that class' role. Rangers don't have close blast pushing powers, Bards don't have double or triple attacks, and Wizards don't have powers that buff their allies. If you want to play a leader Wizard in 4E, you multiclass or hybrid with a leader class. 

A fourth character generally needs to be an all-purpose guy, assuming the other 3 are fairly diverse (in this case they are). The paladin can lay on hands, the druid can heal and the rogue isn't likely to be toe-to-toe, so it sounds like the heal aspect is covered.


4E Druids don't heal, Lay on Hands is really limited, and a lot of Rogue powers need them to be adjacent to enemies. Since you don't know what you're talking about, I suggest you stop trying to give advice until you do.

Sorry. Gave more credit to the edition than it deserved, apparently. Won't happen again.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
lol you don't even know basic elements of the edition you're trying to insult.  How about you learn why it works this way first and then make an opinion about it.  Or better yet, play the edition in question for more than 5 minutes and experience it first hand.  I could care less if you don't like 4E, but watching you insult something out of sheer ignorance, pfft.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

lol you don't even know basic elements of the edition you're trying to insult.  How about you learn why it works this way first and then make an opinion about it.  Or better yet, play the edition in question for more than 5 minutes and experience it first hand.  I could care less if you don't like 4E, but watching you insult something out of sheer ignorance, pfft.



+1

Seriously, I'd have thought by now you'd know the rudimentary terms/rules of 4e.
RIP George! 4-21-11 RIP Abie! 1-2-13
Funny Forum Quotes
[quote author=82733368 post=532127449]
58115148 wrote:
"You notice a large piece of mold clinging to your toothbrush. What do you do?" "I cast Fireball." "I run like hell!
63797881 wrote:
The standard d4 is somewhat (SOMEWHAT) rounded on the top, the older models are even flat. The Lego is shaped in such a way that in an emergency, you can use one as a makeshift surgical knife.
147742801 wrote:
57457938 wrote:
My wife asked me if her pants made her look fat. What do you think I said?
Wife: Do these pants make me look fat? RedSiegfried: I just killed a bunch of orc women and children.
63797881 wrote:
82733368 wrote:
28.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character (Monk or otherwise) does not require my character to be completely shitfaced, no matter what the name (and fun interpretation) implies.
29.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character does not require ME to be completely tanked, no matter how "in-character" I want to be..
I played 4th edition. Even beyond the '5 minutes' it took me to see its flaws... although I'm beginning to see that some of these flaws, like alignment are not problems with the rules, but problems with interpretation of the rules. You're using ROLES as a straightjacket. I advise the OP not to think of ROLES as a straightjacket... even if the edition encourages it (here I am ignorant.. I don't know if 4e encourages ROLES as a straightjacket or not; you imply that it does, but I still say that, in spite of the rules, you should play what you want and adapt.)

I was told the party I played in that they needed a Leader (gamespeak). What they meant was, the party needed someone who could heal.... because they kept getting their arse handed to them. The group told me to play a Leader. Translating to 3.5 edition: They needed a healer. My thinking after watching these 4e masters play was that what the party really needed was to keep them from getting hurt in the first place. This meant ignoring the arbitrary designations of what the role was supposed to be and instead, do what needed to be done. Not just me.. everybody in the group. They were being myopic. Focusing too hard on these roles is being myopic as well. I advise against it. To each his own.

--- My thinking is that these Roles are Striker, Defender, Controller, Leader
And that each of these roles had specific subsets of abilities. Many of these abilities overlap. Many don't. (Especially if as you seem to be doing, ignore all the rest of the game by ignoring things such as feats, equipment, healing surges, and so on). And depending on choices, you have a secondary role. And the OP was trying to decide what class to play. And he was wanting to make that decision based on what role he felt the party needed. - And philosophically, the point of including the concept of Roles was to help inexperienced players pick classes that are least likely in and of themselves to overlap the abilities of others in the party in order to foster a sense of teamwork, and also foster a sense of individual contribution to the team. And using that philosophy as well, the OP was trying to pick what class to play, with that end in mind.

--- Certainly the powers of the classes make fulfilling their so-called roles much easier. Do you think it's a coincidence that each class has secondary roles? I understand that certain abilities come with the choice you make. My advice is to choose by what you think the party needs most... or choose according to the type of character you prefer to play and fight your battles with the army you have. At least you'll be playing a character you can root for. The arbitrary roles merely canonize what players of RPGs have known for ages prior to 4th... Some classes do some stuff better than others. What is the party's weakest link? The arbitrary roles of Striker, Controller, etc. only tell half the story, in other words. If druids don't heal... fine; don't play a druid (if you need a healer). Again, focus on what the party needs. Those roles are just a guideline and maybe the loosest guideline I've seen in any edition, since there is (to me) such obvious overlap. Some players seem pretty hellbent on cramming other players into those roles. I'm just not one of them. That could be my ignorance of the edition, as you seem to think. The OP can decide that for him/herself, I would think. It could also be that the OP can see what I'm getting at because it applies to universally and self-evidentially to any role-playing game, including dungeons and dragons... and possibly even 4th edition doesn't exclude universal truths such as these. Each role serves a purpose and according to equipment, feats, etc., it is possible to step outside the normal arbitrarily designated role that a class is "supposed to" belong to. And once game-play ensues, some of those weak spots can be shored up by creative thinking. Most editions encourage that. Most rpg's in general, for that matter, encourage that.

 --- My advice to the OP is to be versatile, and to pick what the party needs in terms of what they actually need, not in meaningless and arbitrary role designations. And if he can't do that in the edition he is playing in... to let him know that reprints of 3.5 are available.


***
And in reference to svendj saying rogues need to be adjacent... they need to be adjacent to flanked, surprised or otherwise disadvantaged targets. Meaning dead ones, if the rogue's worth his salt.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
lol you don't even know basic elements of the edition you're trying to insult.  How about you learn why it works this way first and then make an opinion about it.  Or better yet, play the edition in question for more than 5 minutes and experience it first hand.  I could care less if you don't like 4E, but watching you insult something out of sheer ignorance, pfft.



+1

Seriously, I'd have thought by now you'd know the rudimentary terms/rules of 4e.

I was basing my advice on D&D. I thought by now, you guys would know the rudimentary concepts of role-playing games.

Just because I don't agree that Striker/Controller/Defender/Controller are meaningful terms, doesn't mean I don't understand the concept or philosophy behind them. I'm merely pointing out the flaws in the concept (or at least in the application of the concept) and that these particular terms are meaningless and arbitrary.

You may have a bias favoring the edition (and consequently all its concepts) which is preventing you from seeing how a player can pick a character based on something other than a role classification system and also from seeing, as I do, that the system itself is (not totally, but quite) arbitrary.

A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
oook buddy.  Whatever you say.  We have the "bias".  Clearly that's what this is.  We "favor" 4E, of course.  Nonsense, pure nonsense.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Iserith: If the games are frequently about one side killing the other, this could be an issue.

-- I think that statement actually supports my advice that the OP should pick the character by what he wants to play and ignore the entire (arbitrary/relatively useless) concept of combat roles such as Leader/Striker/Controller/Defender.

What if what the party REALLY needed was a witty diplomat with a flair for the dramatic and knowledge of the dress styles and court customs of efreeti? What if such strange qualifications were more important to the party than whether the character can Heal, Do big damage, control battlefields, or take damage like a boss?

I'd rather have players give me something more concrete, even if it is going to be simple hack-slash. I'd rather make a decision for role-playing reasons rather than meta-game reasons, in other words. If you need a controller, buy caltrops. If they need a defender, buy armor.


A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
oook buddy.  Whatever you say.  We have the "bias".  Clearly that's what this is.  We "favor" 4E, of course.  Nonsense, pure nonsense.

Excellent rebuttal... succinct, witty, irrefutable.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.


-- I think that statement actually supports my advice that the OP should pick the character by what he wants to play and ignore the entire (arbitrary/relatively useless) concept of combat roles such as Leader/Striker/Controller/Defender.




The OP asked (in his first 10 words):
"Hey would like some advice about which leader to take..."

He didn't ask for an opinion on the role balancing mechanics of 4e. There are other threads out that that do though. This is the OPs thread. Let's try to respect that and keep our answers, suggestions, and discussion relevant.


oook buddy.  Whatever you say.  We have the "bias".  Clearly that's what this is.  We "favor" 4E, of course.  Nonsense, pure nonsense.

Excellent rebuttal... succinct, witty, irrefutable.



It's not a rebuttal, we're not having a discussion.  You're accusing me of being a 4E fanboy for pointing out obvious problems with your statements.  Statements that in fact didn't make any sense within the context of the OP's question or 4E.  You're dismissive attitude is not needed on these forums so keep it to yourself if you can't be polite.  I'm also not the only one trying to get this through to you, wake up buddy.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

To the OP:

The shaman (specifically the panther shaman) and the runepriest are the two leaders with the strongest innate striker-secondary options, so go with one of those if you want to keep things relatively straightforward.
 This is the OPs thread. Let's try to respect that and keep our answers, suggestions, and discussion relevant.



If only this sentiment permeated the rest of the boards dealing with what DMs/players are to do...plenty of people seem to think that these two boards are 4E explicitly and, therefore, give answers based on that edition.
Derailed thread, way to turn this simple question into someone else soap box...

******

Warlord is relevant because, Chaladins have a wonderful MBA called "Virtuous Strike". However, I doubt this is the character the Warlord would want to enable. Its better to enable the rogue, and kill the enemies before they kill you. Enabling shifts for your rogue means they can get into position better to deal damage. Warlords can also enable RBAs. I personally love Archer Warlords, and the D12 damage you do as an Archer Warlord means you can dish out some damage from time to time too. 
well thanks for the useful replies but the Druid went warlord in the end (bravra flavour) so I don't need to take a class with heals anymore. Went whirling barb in the end thanks for the advice


-- I think that statement actually supports my advice that the OP should pick the character by what he wants to play and ignore the entire (arbitrary/relatively useless) concept of combat roles such as Leader/Striker/Controller/Defender.




The OP asked (in his first 10 words):
"Hey would like some advice about which leader to take..."

He didn't ask for an opinion on the role balancing mechanics of 4e. There are other threads out that that do though. This is the OPs thread. Let's try to respect that and keep our answers, suggestions, and discussion relevant.



And my advice was that "the OP should pick the character by what he wants to play and ignore the entire(ly) (arbitrary/relatively useless) concept of combat roles such as Leader/Striker/Controller/Defender. Because that was the only relevant advice.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
oook buddy.  Whatever you say.  We have the "bias".  Clearly that's what this is.  We "favor" 4E, of course.  Nonsense, pure nonsense.

Excellent rebuttal... succinct, witty, irrefutable.



It's not a rebuttal, we're not having a discussion.  You're accusing me of being a 4E fanboy for pointing out obvious problems with your statements.  Statements that in fact didn't make any sense within the context of the OP's question or 4E.  You're dismissive attitude is not needed on these forums so keep it to yourself if you can't be polite.  I'm also not the only one trying to get this through to you, wake up buddy.

I pointed out your bias. I find it difficult to retract the statement and an apology for this would be insincere and impolitely dismissive. Especially as you rather hypocritically point fingers at me for being dismissive and impolite.

I have biases of my own. Everyone does. Whether your a fanboy or not, is irrelevant. I was only suggesting (and which your further statements support) that your bias might make you think that my suggestions are irrelevant; if you didn't have the bias you might be able to see how someone might pick their character class by considering something other than gamespeak Leader/Striker/Controller/Defender. If I am dismissive of those terms, it is because, as my statements were intended to prove, that they are somewhat arbitrary terms intended as guidelines and can consequently be ignored if a different class, taken with consideration of the racial abilities, feats, spells and other abilities can fill the same role and especially if the play style of the group makes some other ability more useful to the party than mere hack and slash combat capabilities.

As far as you pointing out problems with my statements, however... If you did that, it must have been deleted, since none of your statements do that. Many of your statements are, instead dismissive and impolite and only further my case that you are showing bias rather than show errors in the advice.

If you took my statements as being dismissive of your bias, it wasn't intentional; I amply pointed the bias out. If I did so in an impolite manner, that wasn't my intention at the time, though I was a bit perturbed at the dismissiveness of my statement as mere ignorance of the edition and may have come across less magnanimous than I should have.

And this:
"I'm also not the only one trying to get this through to you, wake up buddy." -
I refuted the statement you were referring to here. As I admit I also have certain biases, I accept when I am corrected when that bias is the only basis for statement. When that bias gives me a fresh perspective, however (as in this case), to dismiss it based on a different bias needs to be pointed out. At any rate, your statement is a fallacious appeal to the masses.

Sorry to derail, but when I am being told not to give advice for some reason or another, I want to assert my right to give it. If you want to tell the OP that I give bad advice, that's fine, but please say why you think my advice is bad when you do so. This goes for the masses. And I'll try to do the same for others.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
well thanks for the useful replies but the Druid went warlord in the end (bravra flavour) so I don't need to take a class with heals anymore. Went whirling barb in the end thanks for the advice



Whirling Barb can be comedically fun! I had one that MC'd Whip and dual weilded them. He picked up powers with low [W] damage but plenty of riders and also Bleeding Cut feat (more damage than the whip itself) and the Improvised Thrown weapon attack (so I could throw my whip at somebody...wth??
Very fun!
well thanks for the useful replies but the Druid went warlord in the end (bravra flavour) so I don't need to take a class with heals anymore. Went whirling barb in the end thanks for the advice



Whirling Barb can be comedically fun! I had one that MC'd Whip and dual weilded them. He picked up powers with low [W] damage but plenty of riders and also Bleeding Cut feat (more damage than the whip itself) and the Improvised Thrown weapon attack (so I could throw my whip at somebody...wth??
Very fun!

Whip it! Whip it good! Crack that whip!
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
well thanks for the useful replies but the Druid went warlord in the end (bravra flavour) so I don't need to take a class with heals anymore. Went whirling barb in the end thanks for the advice



Whirling Barb can be comedically fun! I had one that MC'd Whip and dual weilded them. He picked up powers with low [W] damage but plenty of riders and also Bleeding Cut feat (more damage than the whip itself) and the Improvised Thrown weapon attack (so I could throw my whip at somebody...wth??
Very fun!

Whip it! Whip it good! Crack that whip!
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
well thanks for the useful replies but the Druid went warlord in the end (bravra flavour) so I don't need to take a class with heals anymore. Went whirling barb in the end thanks for the advice



Whirling Barb can be comedically fun! I had one that MC'd Whip and dual weilded them. He picked up powers with low [W] damage but plenty of riders and also Bleeding Cut feat (more damage than the whip itself) and the Improvised Thrown weapon attack (so I could throw my whip at somebody...wth??
Very fun!



No. Just no. If you want a controller play a controller, if you want a striker play a barbarian but play it effectively.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
well thanks for the useful replies but the Druid went warlord in the end (bravra flavour) so I don't need to take a class with heals anymore. Went whirling barb in the end thanks for the advice



Whirling Barb can be comedically fun! I had one that MC'd Whip and dual weilded them. He picked up powers with low [W] damage but plenty of riders and also Bleeding Cut feat (more damage than the whip itself) and the Improvised Thrown weapon attack (so I could throw my whip at somebody...wth??
Very fun!



No. Just no. If you want a controller play a controller, if you want a striker play a barbarian but play it effectively.



Seconded, no reason to gimp yourself into uneffective levels of stupid.
RIP George! 4-21-11 RIP Abie! 1-2-13
Funny Forum Quotes
[quote author=82733368 post=532127449]
58115148 wrote:
"You notice a large piece of mold clinging to your toothbrush. What do you do?" "I cast Fireball." "I run like hell!
63797881 wrote:
The standard d4 is somewhat (SOMEWHAT) rounded on the top, the older models are even flat. The Lego is shaped in such a way that in an emergency, you can use one as a makeshift surgical knife.
147742801 wrote:
57457938 wrote:
My wife asked me if her pants made her look fat. What do you think I said?
Wife: Do these pants make me look fat? RedSiegfried: I just killed a bunch of orc women and children.
63797881 wrote:
82733368 wrote:
28.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character (Monk or otherwise) does not require my character to be completely shitfaced, no matter what the name (and fun interpretation) implies.
29.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character does not require ME to be completely tanked, no matter how "in-character" I want to be..
You have paly and rogue..druid most likely when fight starts you all be bunched up melee range. In that case warlord class got some nice atk and initiative bonuses to group when close and or hearing range.  Very effective leader class for melee hvy grp.  Their at will viper stike and wolf pack tactics very useful to your paly and rogue.  their paragon path powerful bonuses for grp mechanics later on as go up in lvl, especially knight commander. Omg +2 atk bonus to adjacent allies at lvl 11. Very powerdul bonus..  I dont like shaman personally.  Pet another npc to control dragging time per turn.
If you're going to play a warlord, play it effectively and grant extra attacks to the rogue so he can get his sneak attack several times per round.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Sign In to post comments