[4e] Leader Advice

[skywalker]

It's been a while since I've started a thread here, but I'm in need of some advice. After vociferously consuming 4th ed for the first year after its publication, I put away my books and didn't think about the system for about 10 months. My point is, I'm completely behind the times when it comes to understanding what's effective and what's not anymore.

So, the issue: I'm about to start playing through the Tomb of Horrors super-adventure in a couple of weeks. The party so far (as I've been told) is a monk, a rogue, and a barbarian, plus a fourth (somewhat unknown) character, although he will probably play a wizard (and sadly more likely oriented towards damage, not control). Obviously, these choices leave me playing a leader, but I'm not sure exactly what style. I know the DM to be firmly anti-powergaming, and I know (at least) most of my fellow players are just as likely to pick an option based on their character concept as they are to pick based on relative power. Typically speaking, I tend to avoid character concepts that involve nerfing the character in the first place.

Anyway, my questions are: Knowing the relative optimization level of the party, how big is the onus on me to make a highly optimal leader? I know that all the 4e adventures I've played/DM'ed have not been easy.

Second, knowing the party composition (I count 3 melee strikers, with 1 slanted towards control and one slanted towards defender, I sincerely hope) and one controller, what direction would you advise I go with my leader? Bard, Artificer, Runepriest, Shaman, these things mean nothing to me.

Help?

[NecroRebel]

It looks to me like you're missing a true Defender, so a Defender subjob would be appreciated, I suspect. At the very least, your Rogue will want someone tough sitting still to give them a flanking partner, so a meleer is ideal in this situation. Given the presence of a Barbarian as well, I'd suggest a Warlord; Barbarians' basic attacks tend to be quite strong, and unlike many other strikers their other attacks aren't reliant on a once-per-round feature like the Rogue's sneak attack. A sub-Defender Leader that can grant extra attacks to the Barbarian is just what the doctor ordered.

As far as building a highly-optimal character, Leaders are probably the best role for abnormally-high levels of optimization, since their strength is mostly their allies'. It's less noticable if a Warlord is twice as powerful as the rest of the party than if a Rogue is, since the rest of the party is getting the Warlord's boosts. If you've had trouble in the past due to a weak party, building a strong character for the Leader certainly can't hurt.

[mobdrazhar]

i would probably take artificer... don't know too much about runepriests but i really don't find shamans that useful. Bards i find useful but i prefer what an Artificer can do for the party with things like Magic Weapon.

Artificer can use his creations to scout and set off any traps that (somehow your rouge failed to disarm) and has some good buff and control powers.

you also forgot 1 leader... Warlord.

[Vitruviansquid]

In response to your first question, it naturally depends on how willing the DM is to soften up encounters that are proving too hard or how likely he is to over-estimate the party's power when building encounters. Given how unbalanced your group is, I'd say it's a safer bet to optimize rather than not.

In response to your second, I'd second the suggestion for warlord. Mainly, this is because Commander's Strike is going to be hitting brutally hard (and often) with the barbarian's strength attacks while it also gives the rogue a second chance to apply sneak attack damage if he misses in a round. Since your group is so heavy on melee (which, imo, makes wizard a terrible choice for the fourth participant), a tactical warlord's ability to control the board is going to be a lot more helpful than if your group had a balance of ranged and melee characters. Not to mention that a warlord can be a rogue's best friend for getting into position. Also, given the lack of a true defender, your party's survival is going to depend on how well you can all block creatures and ensure that enemies cannot focus fire, which makes it helpful to throw in another melee character.

So yeah, I see warlord as functioning fantastically well in this setup. Really, the only thing that would make it more ideal for warlording was if the monk switched to a fighter.

[cupkeyk]

I will vote for a melee leader as well. Tomb of horrors starts at level nine so that's pretty cool.

A valorous bard will have high con and can wade in for the fight. The valorous bard happens to be one of the less fun bards in heroic tier but it gets awesome at heroic with warchanter. Level nine is a really good level to start because you can pick ranged powers and shoot them at melee range with a shadowdance armor (level 9). Most good bard powers are ranged.

A Warlord will have slightly less hitpoints but can really maximize the damage output of the three strikers. A bravura warlord can really shorten combat by making each of your guys' round explode. It is slightly counterintuitive to play.

Tomb of horrors starts at level 9 and ends at level 11, so I am mulling over builds that complete at level nine ad peak at eleven.

[Mando Knight]

Warlord. Definitely Warlord. Other than Runepriests, they can most easily gain the AC needed to stick out in the battlefield (TacLords for Int synergy and/or Battlefront Leader for Heavy Shields and easier qualification for Scale due to a unique feat), and have the fantastic at-will Commander's Strike, which hits the enemy with the Barbarian. Multiclass into Paladin or Fighter to draw attacks onto yourself as needed (provided it's once per encounter).

Otherwise, Runepriest or Bard. The Bard's Misdirected Mark power is useful here: the Barbarian is a Striker with a big enough gut to sit in place of the Defender if he manages to get a mark. They still can't replace a proper Defender, though, since they can't retaliate for enemies ignoring the mark.

Runepriests are oddball melee Leaders that can go defensive or offensive with the exact same power set. The Rune system allows you to bolster adjacent allies attack rolls or grant Resist All on the fly, in addition to extra effects based on the powers you use. In exchange, they can't heal like the Cleric can, or even the Warlord or Bard.

[Kurald Galain]

So, the issue: I'm about to start playing through the Tomb of Horrors super-adventure in a couple of weeks.
Okay. I'm sure you're aware of the reputation of the TOH? That means you'll need a good healer, hands down.



The party so far (as I've been told) is a monk, a rogue, and a barbarian, plus a fourth (somewhat unknown) character, although he will probably play a wizard (and sadly more likely oriented towards damage, not control).
All melee strikes? I would recommend nudging the rogue towards ranged (note that daggers are thrown weapons anyway), and nudging the wizard towards the biggest area effects he can find, because doing damage over a large area is more damage. L3 Color Spray and L7 Twist of Space are excellent control in addition to good damage.



Second, knowing the party composition (I count 3 melee strikers, with 1 slanted towards control and one slanted towards defender, I sincerely hope) and one controller, what direction would you advise I go with my leader?
With so many melee strikers, the obvious answer is warlord, as several people have already suggested. Cleric used to be the best healer, but has been nerfed heavily in the last two updates so that's no longer really the case. Warlord, in particular tactical warlord, has always been best at buffing your allies.

Also, advice for every character in the group: try to get resistance to necrotic, poison, and fire. It's not all that expensive, and you'll be glad you did.

[skywalker]

It looks to me like you're missing a true Defender, so a Defender subjob would be appreciated, I suspect. At the very least, your Rogue will want someone tough sitting still to give them a flanking partner, so a meleer is ideal in this situation. Given the presence of a Barbarian as well, I'd suggest a Warlord; Barbarians' basic attacks tend to be quite strong, and unlike many other strikers their other attacks aren't reliant on a once-per-round feature like the Rogue's sneak attack. A sub-Defender Leader that can grant extra attacks to the Barbarian is just what the doctor ordered.

This was actually my same belief, but again, I'm behind the leader times, or so I thought.


As far as building a highly-optimal character, Leaders are probably the best role for abnormally-high levels of optimization, since their strength is mostly their allies'. It's less noticable if a Warlord is twice as powerful as the rest of the party than if a Rogue is, since the rest of the party is getting the Warlord's boosts. If you've had trouble in the past due to a weak party, building a strong character for the Leader certainly can't hurt.

My thoughts exactly. No one says "you're too powerful!" when you're keeping everyone alive. I actually have no idea about weak parties, this is a brand new group, made by adding together the most role-play friendly players from several sources.


i would probably take artificer... don't know too much about runepriests but i really don't find shamans that useful. Bards i find useful but i prefer what an Artificer can do for the party with things like Magic Weapon.

Artificer can use his creations to scout and set off any traps that (somehow your rouge failed to disarm) and has some good buff and control powers.

you also forgot 1 leader... Warlord.

Didn't forget, merely listed those to indicate I have no idea what's going on there. Warlord and Cleric I have a bit of experience with. I also left out the Ardent.


In response to your first question, it naturally depends on how willing the DM is to soften up encounters that are proving too hard or how likely he is to over-estimate the party's power when building encounters. Given how unbalanced your group is, I'd say it's a safer bet to optimize rather than not.

Good advice.


In response to your second, I'd second the suggestion for warlord. Mainly, this is because Commander's Strike is going to be hitting brutally hard (and often) with the barbarian's strength attacks while it also gives the rogue a second chance to apply sneak attack damage if he misses in a round. Since your group is so heavy on melee (which, imo, makes wizard a terrible choice for the fourth participant), a tactical warlord's ability to control the board is going to be a lot more helpful than if your group had a balance of ranged and melee characters. Not to mention that a warlord can be a rogue's best friend for getting into position. Also, given the lack of a true defender, your party's survival is going to depend on how well you can all block creatures and ensure that enemies cannot focus fire, which makes it helpful to throw in another melee character.
So yeah, I see warlord as functioning fantastically well in this setup. Really, the only thing that would make it more ideal for warlording was if the monk switched to a fighter.

As I said, very little optimization here. I certainly would have had them all follow the "guidelines" in PHB or Player's Guide. Apparently it's "I always play a rogue" and "I always play a barbarian," and I know wizard man almost always plays wizards. But I can see that this is starting to trend toward warlords pretty heavily haha.



I will vote for a melee leader as well. Tomb of horrors starts at level nine so that's pretty cool.

A valorous bard will have high con and can wade in for the fight. The valorous bard happens to be one of the less fun bards in heroic tier but it gets awesome at heroic with warchanter. Level nine is a really good level to start because you can pick ranged powers and shoot them at melee range with a shadowdance armor (level 9). Most good bard powers are ranged.

A Warlord will have slightly less hitpoints but can really maximize the damage output of the three strikers. A bravura warlord can really shorten combat by making each of your guys' round explode. It is slightly counterintuitive to play.

Tomb of horrors starts at level 9 and ends at level 11, so I am mulling over builds that complete at level nine ad peak at eleven.

Tell me more about the Bard and the Bravelord, I'm not too familiar. Don't obsess over the level requirements, this character is likely to get some play beyond the Tomb, as long as he lives and we have enough fun.


Warlord. Definitely Warlord. Other than Runepriests, they can most easily gain the AC needed to stick out in the battlefield (TacLords for Int synergy and/or Battlefront Leader for Heavy Shields and easier qualification for Scale due to a unique feat), and have the fantastic at-will Commander's Strike, which hits the enemy with the Barbarian. Multiclass into Paladin or Fighter to draw attacks onto yourself as needed (provided it's once per encounter).

Otherwise, Runepriest or Bard. The Bard's Misdirected Mark power is useful here: the Barbarian is a Striker with a big enough gut to sit in place of the Defender if he manages to get a mark. They still can't replace a proper Defender, though, since they can't retaliate for enemies ignoring the mark.

Runepriests are oddball melee Leaders that can go defensive or offensive with the exact same power set. The Rune system allows you to bolster adjacent allies attack rolls or grant Resist All on the fly, in addition to extra effects based on the powers you use. In exchange, they can't heal like the Cleric can, or even the Warlord or Bard.

Again,


Okay. I'm sure you're aware of the reputation of the TOH? That means you'll need a good healer, hands down.

Acutely. Which is why I don't want to screw this up. :smallbiggrin:


All melee strikes? I would recommend nudging the rogue towards ranged (note that daggers are thrown weapons anyway), and nudging the wizard towards the biggest area effects he can find, because doing damage over a large area is more damage. L3 Color Spray and L7 Twist of Space are excellent control in addition to good damage.

Will not be much nudging going on, at least until people die and start making new characters.


With so many melee strikers, the obvious answer is warlord, as several people have already suggested. Cleric used to be the best healer, but has been nerfed heavily in the last two updates so that's no longer really the case. Warlord, in particular tactical warlord, has always been best at buffing your allies.

Now, this, I needed this. Because I was under the impression warlords were pretty terrible as far as healing went, and so had the dilemma of "do I optimize healing, or use a warlord like this group probably needs?"


Also, advice for every character in the group: try to get resistance to necrotic, poison, and fire. It's not all that expensive, and you'll be glad you did.

Thank you.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

The Taclord's style is to heal as an afterthought as he/she spends most of their time moving allies around and buffing them. With such a martial party, the Commander's strike at-will is insanely good when paired with a barbarian. By ensuring that the party is killing things faster, the Taclord ensures that less heals will need to be used in the first place. So, while not the peak healing class, he/she will still be filling their role quite well.

As an example of this, I ran a level 1 Human Warlord in a level 6+ campaign (with one of those smexky reach spears) with a party consisting of a level 6 wizard, level 6 barbarian, a level 6 rogue, and a level 6 ranger. With Commander's Strike, Direct the Strike, and Wolf Pack Tactics as at-wills, the party was either always in position, or striking where they needed to hit, when either was needed. Even more to the point, the group was never shy on heals (though things did get hairy during a particularly complicated fight) and we even curb stomped the campaign's final encounter with only a single Tac-fueled healing surge used before the end.

Do not underestimate the non-healing aspects of the leader class. :smalltongue:

[Hzurr]

With so many melee strikers, the obvious answer is warlord, as several people have already suggested. Cleric used to be the best healer, but has been nerfed heavily in the last two updates so that's no longer really the case. Warlord, in particular tactical warlord, has always been best at buffing your allies.

There have been several Cleric "nerfs" but really it was just to limit some of the ridiculous surgeless healing abilities that they had. Clerics are still the best healers compaired to all the other leaders, but it isn't quite as drastic as before. All leaders are good, but if you want a leader who can heal the most hitpoints, you won't beat the Cleric.

If you're leaning Warlord, one thing to consider is the intelligence level of the players in the party. Quite honestly, the other PCs might blow you out of the water from a tactics standpoint, in which case you messing with their characters could almost be a hindrance. If, however, you're all fairly bright people, and you in particular have a good head for combat, you'll be amazing.

One other option you might consider is the Artificer. If you focus on constructs, instead of you helping out on the front line, you can build your own frontline to take the hits for you. This gives you the option of hanging back and throwing out some ranged attacks, but still being able to send something up front to soak up hits, to give out healing, or just to be a road block in the face of the enemies. It may also help fill that "Controllery" gap that it sounds like your wizard might not take care of.


In my personal opinion, I like warlords the best, I just wanted to make sure you had some of your other options highlighted.

[tcrudisi]

Forewarning: I didn't really read much of what you said and 0% of what everyone else said. Here's what I got from what you said: "I gotta play a Leader and we'll be doing Tomb of Horrors."

Here's what I have to offer: I've ran 4e Tomb of Horrors.

Here's what I suggest: Artificer. Omg, go Artificer. The ability to swap healing surges is absolutely critical. Of course, so is Arcana, Perception, and Thievery... with a heavy emphasis on skills.

Seriously, if you are "optimizing" you are doing it wrong in Tomb of Horrors. Don't optimize -- play a fun character, because, well, the character only matters about 25%. The other 75% are the players.

However, within that 25%? Go Artificer.

[Kurald Galain]

One other option you might consider is the Artificer. If you focus on constructs, instead of you helping out on the front line,
I'm not sure this is such a good idea. The best summoners are druids and wizards, not artificers.



Here's what I suggest: Artificer. Omg, go Artificer. The ability to swap healing surges is absolutely critical.
Or you can use Comrade's Succor, which is cheap for any healer.

It's not that artificers are bad per se, but there are so many more options available for warlords and clerics that it's not even funny.

[Hzurr]

I'm not sure this is such a good idea. The best summoners are druids and wizards, not artificers.

I haven't seen a druid or wizard summoner in play, so this may very well be true. However, the OP was asking about leaders specifically, so I just wanted to make certain that he got different opinions in case he didn't feel like playing a warlord. I do agree that there are more options for Clerics & Warlords than there are for...really any other leader class (they've been around the longest, what do you expect?), but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't make an awesome bard, or artificer, or ardent. Just because there are more options, that doesn't mean it's ideal for everyone.

I'd forgotten about the "group healing surge" thing that tcrudisi mentioned. I've only seen this come up in play a few times, so I didn't highlight it as a big deal; but since he's actually been running the 4E Tomb of Horrors, I'm inclined to believe him.

One thing that I do agree with what tcrudisi mentioned is - Play something fun. There's no point in trying to fill whatever role you think needs to be filled if you won't have fun doing it. That being said, I've seen people really enjoy playing leaders, even those people who hated playing the healbot in 3.5

[tcrudisi]

I'd forgotten about the "group healing surge" thing that tcrudisi mentioned. I've only seen this come up in play a few times, so I didn't highlight it as a big deal; but since he's actually been running the 4E Tomb of Horrors, I'm inclined to believe him.

One thing that I do agree with what tcrudisi mentioned is - Play something fun. There's no point in trying to fill whatever role you think needs to be filled if you won't have fun doing it. That being said, I've seen people really enjoy playing leaders, even those people who hated playing the healbot in 3.5

I really don't want to give anything away as the fun in Tomb of Horrors is how challenging it is to the players and not the characters.

Having said that, if you have a character that is 2x as good as another, it will do only maybe 25% better in this dungeon. That is to say, instead of being 100% better, it will be only 25% better... so optimization is not important.

The typical party make-up is not important, either. If you don't have a defender? You can survive. You don't have a Controller? You can survive. You don't have a striker? You can survive. You don't have a Leader? You are dead.

As such, play something fun. Really, there are 0 classes that are necessary -- but having the Artificers ability to share healing surges is very important. As Gerald mentioned (and I had forgotten), there is a ritual that allows you to do it. Now, after you play in it, you will scream at me: "But tcrudisi! You said we didn't need class X!" Well, you didn't. You needed the skills it could bring to the table (see my previous post), which any class can take for a feat.

This dungeon is incredibly frustrating or very fulfilling. Don't approach it with the mindset that your character can kill anything. It can't, and that's what this dungeon was designed to prove. Go in it ready to laugh, cry, and get frustrated and angry... all at the same time. It's beautiful to put power-gamers into it as they are (typically) helpless.

Enjoy your time in the Tomb of Horrors.

[Blazen]

That's fairly true for pretty much any thing concerning the system. 4e is very forgiving to the point where the only way to build a bad characters is to do it on purpose... or play a hybrid. Also, healing is only one of the leader's jobs, Clerics are really good at it, but in my opinion Warlords are the best leaders.

[Mando Knight]

I really don't want to give anything away as the fun in Tomb of Horrors is how challenging it is to the players and not the characters.


This is important. None of the traps are that hard if you figure them out in time, but you can end up a man down if you don't look before you leap. For example, the preview encounter had a fairly-easily disabled trap that, if you fail to disable it, will cause the people fighting the solo to turn against you and eventually effectively become another monster in the fight. Disabling the trap disables the entire encounter.

[Colmarr]

In my experience, a battle cleric with the Battle Chaplain paragon path makes a pretty decent off-defender while still being able to be a significant healer.

Of course, Paragon Paths only become available at level 11, so if the module does indeed end at 11 this advice may not be too useful for you :smallsmile:

[skywalker]

If you're leaning Warlord, one thing to consider is the intelligence level of the players in the party. Quite honestly, the other PCs might blow you out of the water from a tactics standpoint, in which case you messing with their characters could almost be a hindrance. If, however, you're all fairly bright people, and you in particular have a good head for combat, you'll be amazing.

This is unlikely to be a problem. I'm highly tactically minded, and although I don't like to toot my own horn (*tooot*), I won't be the problem if there's any "deficit of brightness."


Seriously, if you are "optimizing" you are doing it wrong in Tomb of Horrors. Don't optimize -- play a fun character, because, well, the character only matters about 25%. The other 75% are the players.


One thing that I do agree with what tcrudisi mentioned is - Play something fun. There's no point in trying to fill whatever role you think needs to be filled if you won't have fun doing it. That being said, I've seen people really enjoy playing leaders, even those people who hated playing the healbot in 3.5

There is absolutely, positively a point in filling the role of healer, regardless of whether or not I have fun. I might have less fun being a healer than I would being something else, but I would have even less fun losing. It's a balance.

I stuck these two together because I have a point to make about both: It is fun for me to optimize. When I create a character, I almost never find it necessary to take feats or powers to make a point or flesh him or her out. Maybe sometimes a "sub-optimal" power is chosen because of the versatility it lends when I think the character would appreciate that, but I don't let my build choices (especially powers) define my character.


I really don't want to give anything away as the fun in Tomb of Horrors is how challenging it is to the players and not the characters.

Having said that, if you have a character that is 2x as good as another, it will do only maybe 25% better in this dungeon. That is to say, instead of being 100% better, it will be only 25% better... so optimization is not important.

The typical party make-up is not important, either. If you don't have a defender? You can survive. You don't have a Controller? You can survive. You don't have a striker? You can survive. You don't have a Leader? You are dead.

I want to be clear that when I say "optimizing is fun," I don't mean "being better than the other characters is fun." Just that being the best bard/wizard/fighter/rogue I can be is fun.

I'm not worried about anything outside of combat. I know that will work itself out. But I know that there is combat in Tomb of Horrors, and if it's as Horrific as the rest of the Tomb, I'd worry about the ability a suboptimal party with merely average leadership (from an "optimization" standpoint) to cope. Like I said before, 4th edition expects a certain level of optimization, at least the way I see it...


As such, play something fun. Really, there are 0 classes that are necessary -- but having the Artificers ability to share healing surges is very important. As Gerald mentioned (and I had forgotten), there is a ritual that allows you to do it. Now, after you play in it, you will scream at me: "But tcrudisi! You said we didn't need class X!" Well, you didn't. You needed the skills it could bring to the table (see my previous post), which any class can take for a feat.

This dungeon is incredibly frustrating or very fulfilling. Don't approach it with the mindset that your character can kill anything. It can't, and that's what this dungeon was designed to prove. Go in it ready to laugh, cry, and get frustrated and angry... all at the same time. It's beautiful to put power-gamers into it as they are (typically) helpless.

Enjoy your time in the Tomb of Horrors.

Thanks. :smallsmile: