[4e] The Leaderless party

[Hal]

Not long ago I asked for insight on building a warlord because of some changes my party went through. The player for our Leader decided he'd rather play a Striker, leaving us Leaderless. I'm reluctantly looking at options for switching to a Leader-class, but some of the other players are telling me to stick with what I find fun and just let the dice fall where they may.

I'm curious what the opinions are on this. If you have any experience in a party like this, how did it turn out for you?

I'm rather thinking that a party lacking any Leader is going to be completely dependent on DM generosity (that is, scaling encounters down so that in-combat healing isn't required). Second winds will only take a party so far, and I'm imagining the number of encounters such a party can participate in before needing an extended rest will decrease. I'm afraid that the glass cannons (my gnome rogue and the soon-to-be avenger) are going to shatter very quickly.

Edit: For the record, I'd like to point our that our party does have a Paladin, though with only one use of LoH a day. This gives a party make-up, currently, of one Defender, one Controller, and four Strikers.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm rather thinking that a party lacking any Leader is going to be completely dependent on DM generosity (that is, scaling encounters down so that in-combat healing isn't required).

I would agree.

I don't subscribe to the four-role model much, and consider any role superfluous except for the healer (i.e. leader). Unless you're a dwarf, second wind is a really poor strategy most of the time, because you'll generally heal less than the monsters will hit you for. And without a leader around, any party member who goes down will almost without exception stay down; spending standard actions on touch-range heal checks is not such a great strategy either.

If you really must play without a leader, grab a lot of potions, take the quick draw feat so you can actually use them when you need to, have everyone consider taking a cleric or warlord multiclass feat, and invest heavily in Holy Healers Staffs and Healing Sashes. It's awkward but possible.

[Darth Stabber]

You can do without a tank (though it is difficult), You can do without a Controller(though the tank now has a more difficult job), and you can do without a striker (Most easily, just have everybody else pickup a few of the more Damaging powers), but leader is hard to replicate. Multi-Class feats help, Paladins help (but then you have a subpar tank), potions help, dwarven armor helps, and many classes have Dailies that allow them to spend a healing surge (i know off the top of my head Fighter and Avenger have one @ lvl one). But this particular concept requires some building around. My current fighter(lvl 2) is a dwarf (Minor action second wind), with initiate of faith, Comback strike, dwarven armor, and 2 health pots. If I would have been battle rager, instead of one handed specialist, I think I would have the chops to go in a leaderless party, but Most of my abilities are based around being hard to kill, and I don't have much intention of continuing to staying heal based, and if I did I lose out on some stickiness. The bottom line is that it is possible for everyone to do with out one, but it involves choosing between doing your job and staying alive. Even then I would expect a slightly higher attrition rate, and you don't have nice little bonuses getting handed out every turn. My thought on the Ideal makeup of a leaderless party: Warforged Battle rager fighter(very temp Hp reliant, needs less healing than other variants), Dwarf Paladin(the healer substitute and off tank/off striker, Elf Avenger of Tempus(accurate, deadly, makes one thing dead exceedingly well), and a Staffizard(Designed to be hard to hit, more likely to make him live between fights). I would not recommend trying this, but hey you never know what might be good.

[LibraryOgre]

I have not played in a leaderless party, but I will say I have a blast playing a leader; I'm going from Warlord to Bard in our current game (not dropping the warlord, but we're dropping the story he went on for now).

When playing a leader, damage is good, but the real key is "How do I make sure the rest of the party can kill things faster?" Increase defenses so they get hurt less. Shift people around they're flanking with someone. That healing is a minor action helps a lot... you can do it and hit someone.

Oh, and if you are the reason someone hits something (if you're playing a tactical warlord and someone uses an action point, or your power gave them a bonus to hit that made sure they hit), kills something (a resourceful warlord and the bonus to damage), or doesn't die (anyone you healed or gave temporary HP to)? Remind everyone at the table of it. Because YOU are awesome, THEY are awesome. Without you, they only rate an "awwww."

[Archpaladin Zousha]

As someone who for a time had to be the "leader" while playing a defender in a leaderless party, I'll tell you this. You'll likely be resting a lot more between battles, investing in healing stuff like potions, and your goal in combat will be to kill the enemies quickly, before they have a chance to do damage to you.

[Tengu_temp]

A party without a leader will have a hard time with most level-appropriate encounters, especially those including elites and especially if its strikers are glass cannons. I suggest that one of the guys in your party switched to a Warlord - their damage output is very high for a non-striker and are generally a fun class to play.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I agree. With the advent of Martial Power, Warlords gained a lot of personality and awesomeness.

I personally hope Divine Power will do the same for the paladin. *waits anxiously*

[Tengu_temp]

Actually, in my not-so-humble opinion (which is also apparently shared by many people), warlord is already the coolest core class even before any splatbooks were released. Swordmage dethroned him for me, but I don't think if warlord will ever drop from my Top Three 4E Classes list.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Meh, my opinion's likely colored by my admitted paladin fanboyism. *shrug*

[Thajocoth]

I'm in a party that had:
Wizard (Me), Warlord, Fighter, Ranger, Warlock, Rogue

The Warlord left due to time constraints.

The Fighter & I both multiclassed Cleric, so we've got 2 total Healing Words per day.

This has resulted in the GM going easy on us. No more than 3 fights in a day. It's honestly not quite as interesting. My Wizard's parents are a Cleric & a Swordmage. If he dies, I'm having his mother join the party. (I've never played a Cleric before.)

[Asbestos]

It is totally doable... but as others have mentioned it plays different.

As ZO said, you will be resting more often without a primary leader healing everyone.

Potions are a must. As are the precious few items that let you heal up.

The 'Combat Medic' feat is a must because, as KG noted, spending standard actions to get people up isn't really a net-positive thing.

The party will need to load up on classes/builds that are secondary leaders because they will either provide much needed healing or will help everyone else kill the baddies faster. The Barbarian Thaneborn build (which may or may not be a secondary leader) is good here because it doesn't really lose much of its killing power in exchange for helping everyone else kill faster.

It will probably help a lot if a secondary leader(s) multiclasses into a leader class. I suggest both Warlord Multiclass feats so that you can get Inspiring Word 1/day AND throw out temp hp when people spend action points. Thanks to the stat synergy this works well with Chaladins and Thaneborn barbarians (probably best with the latter since their stats mirror Warlord stats)

Paladins are probably a must, their the best secondary healers probably. At 1st level at least, I haven't really looked to see what the druid/invoker get as they progress.

If your party has a fighter, then BRV is probably the way to go for him. This will allow him to be less of a drain on healing resources than otherwise... unless he runs into ranged combatants or doesn't load up on invigorating powers; remember, kids, BRV hp doesn't stack.

[Thrawn183]

Heh, I'm playing in a party without a leader, and I've never seen a group do so well.

We're epic level and are composed of a dark pact warlock, a sorceror, an avenger, a barbarian (me) and a swordmage. No one is multiclassed. No one uses potions mid-battle. In fact, I don't know if anyone has even used a second wind in battle. We literally just kill everything before they become a problem.

Granted I think changing a leader out for a different archetype without changing the composition of the entire party is inadvisable. In my experience though, it can be done rather easily.

[ocato]

remember, kids, BRV hp doesn't stack.

People think it stacks? I can't imagine how it would stack, since you have to get hit in order for it to trigger. I suppose if someone hit you for less than your CON Mod, but that seems unlikely. BRV and Invigorating HP do stack, however.

BRV Dwarf Fighter = my favorite character so far (hopefully I get to play my Warlord soon) . I was actually on my way to suggest it for the leaderless party.

Massive damage and a well-played Rager Defender is cruise control for a DM screen painted with frustration.

[LibraryOgre]

Meh, my opinion's likely colored by my admitted paladin fanboyism. *shrug*

I like both. In fact, I've only played one character in 4e (out of 4) who was not the least bit Warlord.

[Kurald Galain]

No one uses potions mid-battle. In fact, I don't know if anyone has even used a second wind in battle. We literally just kill everything before they become a problem.

This suggests that either you're fighting encounters under your level, or your DM is not very good at tactics.

[Thrawn183]

No, it's just that the swordmage is so hard to hit, and my barbarian has so many/much HP/Damage Resistance/regeneration that the enemy gets killed before they can do anything serious to us.

Though the downside to having a frenzied berzerker is one less rage per day *sigh.* It's difficult to pull off Final Confrontation successfully. If the enemy is too strong it's useless, and if I pop Stone's Endurance for Damage Resistance 15 no enemy is dumb enough to keep attacking. It's tough to make it where the enemy thinks its a good idea but it really isn't.

Seriously though, I have a Str/Con Goliath Rageblood Frenzied Berserker/Demigod. I took the feat where I don't drop when I fall in to negatives and I gain Damage Resistance 5 whenever I'm bloodied. Just throw into the mix that as a Demigod once per day I can gain half my HP back when reduced to zero (this isn't even talking about the pheonix rages where you can spend healing surges when dropped to zero or below).

One character in the party has a healing item that you can store healing surges in and I specifically told him to stop using it on me because I'm better when bloodied.

The closest I've come to having a problem was when a succubus made me her shield for almost an entire battle. Everything turned out fine though because the party couldn't really drop me.

[Totally Guy]

The party I was DMing for was made up of

Tiefling Infernal Warlock
Dragonborn Strength Paladin
Eladrin Wand Wizard
And Eladrin Tactical Warlord.

The Warlord player got very bored of only helping other people do cool things without doing cool things himself. I tried to put cool things in for the character to do but eventually we retired the Taclord and we got an Eladrin Rogue instead.

I think the opinions of the group have now become biased against leader classes.

Me, I think it was the "lawful good" playing style of the character's personality that made it less fun then the trouble making replacement rogue for that particular player.

My players have never used potions. I gave some out in the loot but once they'd used them on an npc they were never replaced.

[TheOOB]

In my experiance, no role is required, but leader is the hardest to work without. Most characters can only spend 1 healing surge during combat, and it's fairly inefficient. I have found that the leaders in my party tend to use their innate healing ability the max number of times in almost every combat, and without it combat would be way more dangerous.

You would end up with a situation where people have to think way more defensively, and combat would be much higher stakes. Running away would become a regular stratagy, and people would be knocked unconsious regularly.

It is possible, but not advisable.

[Hal]

After trying out my new Dwarven Warlord in a game, I've come to the conclusion that you can't do without Leaders OR Defenders.

This was the first session out for my new Warlord, but our party Paladin, the only Defender, was away and thus his character was as well. With no Defender, it came to the Barbarian and the Avenger to soak the melee attacks at the front of the action.

The result?

We started a running tally of the number of times the Barbarian dropped below 0 hp and was brought back. I think we got up to 5. The session ended with my own character at zero (and one saving throw down as well).

Now, part of this owes to the fact that our DM likes to throw high powered encounters at us; I guess you can only watch a party barrel through monsters for so long before you say, "Fine! Here's 8 monters 5 levels above you! Beat that!"

Still, the absence of the Defender meant that there was no one to draw and soak attacks. The party only even survived because there was a Leader to bring them back from the brink of death.

So yeah . . . these guys are the indispensable ones. I'm starting to wonder why Strikers are always so glamorous.

[Colmarr]

So yeah . . . these guys are the indispensable ones. I'm starting to wonder why Strikers are always so glamorous.

Because strikers are the ones who do the killing.

No one remembers 6 months later that it was the healing that kept you up or the Commander's Strike from the warlord that allowed the extra attack. All that gets remembered is that it was PC X (usually a striker) who dealt the OMGWTFPWN hit that downed the BBEG.

Which is why leaders and defenders should crow as loudly as possible every time their buffs/marks makes a difference. I personally say "Yay for Shield of Faith" or "Go go Priest's Shield" every time they stop a hit.

Having said that, I think WotC have done a damn fine job of making all of the roles indispensible. Defenders and leaders for obvious reasons, but strikers bring combats to an end faster. Without them you'd run out of healing resources pretty quickly. IMO controllers are probably the "weakest" role, but every now and again my party's wizard does something that blows me away.

[Hal]

IMO controllers are probably the "weakest" role, but every now and again my party's wizard does something that blows me away.

I agree with this as well, but only tentatively. I say so because I've only played at low levels so far (5 or lower), and that means that the Controllers probably haven't gotten a chance to shine yet. Most of their effects are either "striker lite" or are effects that cause opponents to be slowed. "Slow" isn't much of a boon when we're stuck in tight fighting conditions.

[TheOOB]

Strikers are important, the quicker an enemy falls the less damage they do to your party. That said, even the best team will take damage and they need someone to deal with it.

[Kurald Galain]

Because strikers are the ones who do the killing.

Precisely. "You do how much damage??!" is what people remember if the DM says it

Having said that, I think WotC have done a damn fine job of making all of the roles indispensible.

That's a funny remark, considering this thread is pointing out that none of them are indispensable (the DMG even points that out), with the likely exception of leaders. That's because the line between the roles (other than leader) is really blurry.

IMO controllers are probably the "weakest" role

Heh. No, that's just what they want you to think.