|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 1:06AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 5:12AM
#12
|
|
|
Any class could have some sort of tactical support.
But actually being a "leader" is in the realm of role-playing, not rules.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 5:37AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 6:04AM
#14
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 6:35AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 7:26AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
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
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 8:26AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 10:08AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 11, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 10:46AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 11:03AM
#20
|
|
|
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".
|
|
|
