Why do you have to be the head of a group to lead..
I mean, really. Its a group, just because Bob the Barbarian is in charge of holding hands doesn't mean Bill the Paladin shouldn't be able to assume the position of a beacon of truth, justice, and the Elanthian way.
The idea that everyone is hiding behind the guy who was in charge of holding hands is silly :P
TEVESHSZAT
LENNONJON
Re: It makes no sense...
08/03/2002 03:26 AM CDT
<<Why do you have to be the head of a group to lead..>>
Umm if you aren't the head of a group you aren't leading, you are following...
--Just a Squire
Umm if you aren't the head of a group you aren't leading, you are following...
--Just a Squire
TEVESHSZAT
Re: It makes no sense...
08/03/2002 03:31 AM CDT
>>Umm if you aren't the head of a group you aren't leading, you are following...
System wise, yes.
But, it makes no sense that a milling group of people can't see person X as a leader even though he's not the one who, system wise, held everyone's hand.
The idea that someone, for any ability, has to be 'head' of the group, via the system itself, in order for the ability to work is silly in my own opinion.
System wise, yes.
But, it makes no sense that a milling group of people can't see person X as a leader even though he's not the one who, system wise, held everyone's hand.
The idea that someone, for any ability, has to be 'head' of the group, via the system itself, in order for the ability to work is silly in my own opinion.
BLUR
Re: It makes no sense...
08/03/2002 11:13 AM CDT
Dolt that I must be, it makes sense to me.
Michael, aka Humm Breaux
Michael, aka Humm Breaux
CLYNLYN
Re: It makes no sense...
08/03/2002 12:19 PM CDT
<<Umm if you aren't the head of a group you aren't leading, you are following...
<<--Just a Squire
well all i know is that in group military combat , and in middle ages , the "leader" wasnt at the fore front. You would have advance units and or scouts and guides if your moving through an area. The leader was always in a safer spot in the group. Now i do agree that it might not necessarily mean that here because of mechanics issues. But just wanted to put my nickel on it.
Clyn
<<--Just a Squire
well all i know is that in group military combat , and in middle ages , the "leader" wasnt at the fore front. You would have advance units and or scouts and guides if your moving through an area. The leader was always in a safer spot in the group. Now i do agree that it might not necessarily mean that here because of mechanics issues. But just wanted to put my nickel on it.
Clyn
BLUR
Re: It makes no sense...
08/03/2002 12:46 PM CDT
I have also learned that those who lead from behind garner less respect and support than those who are willing to lead from the front.
To follow someone into battle is quite different than being merely sent into battle.
Michael, aka Humm Breaux
To follow someone into battle is quite different than being merely sent into battle.
Michael, aka Humm Breaux
ROTHB1
Re: It makes no sense...
08/03/2002 01:02 PM CDT
>>
To follow someone into battle is quite different than being merely sent into battle.
<<
Perhaps a compramise. Leading the group would give the usual lead
Just being in a group would give a weaker lead.
?
To follow someone into battle is quite different than being merely sent into battle.
<<
Perhaps a compramise. Leading the group would give the usual lead
Just being in a group would give a weaker lead.
?
BLUR
Re: It makes no sense...
08/03/2002 01:10 PM CDT
How about an ability called "Encourage"?
Very small usage out of power pool, but enough to prevent constant "encouragement", and an effect similar to Lead. Cannot be used in conjunction with Lead, but usable with any other guilds ability.
Michael, aka Humm Breaux
Very small usage out of power pool, but enough to prevent constant "encouragement", and an effect similar to Lead. Cannot be used in conjunction with Lead, but usable with any other guilds ability.
Michael, aka Humm Breaux
LENNONJON
Re: It makes no sense...
08/03/2002 01:43 PM CDT
<<well all i know is that in group military combat , and in middle ages , the "leader" wasnt at the fore front. You would have advance units and or scouts and guides if your moving through an area. The leader was always in a safer spot in the group. Now i do agree that it might not necessarily mean that here because of mechanics issues. But just wanted to put my nickel on it.>>
You are correct. In most military battles the true "leader" only came to rally the troops after or before the battle. Our ability is something to use during battle, and as such to truly be "leading" we should be in charge of the group.
I do like the idea that HUmm posted on "Encourage" or we could call it "Rally" or something. Something we can do while either in a group, that perhaps would stay in effect until the person "rallying" or the majority of the troops die ::grin::...Maybe even make it so after rallied they don't have to stay connected to the person who used the ability.
--Just a Squire
You are correct. In most military battles the true "leader" only came to rally the troops after or before the battle. Our ability is something to use during battle, and as such to truly be "leading" we should be in charge of the group.
I do like the idea that HUmm posted on "Encourage" or we could call it "Rally" or something. Something we can do while either in a group, that perhaps would stay in effect until the person "rallying" or the majority of the troops die ::grin::...Maybe even make it so after rallied they don't have to stay connected to the person who used the ability.
--Just a Squire
CERVANNTES
Re: It makes no sense...
08/03/2002 03:47 PM CDT
> well all i know is that in group military combat , and in middle ages , the "leader" wasnt at the fore front.
Depends on exactly when and where, but yeah, most of the officers tended to lead from the rear, for many reasons, the least of which being they needed a good spot where they could survey and direct the forces without being shot.
However, there's a difference between the general that is trying to coordinate massive military manuevers with thousands of troops, and the front-line officer who stands next to the standard-bearer and shouts "Charge" as he leads the actual attack. The latter is what the paladin Lead ability is all about - the Leading paladin isn't the general in the officers' tent making large-scale tactical plans and making sure they are being coordinated. He's the front-line officer that actually leads his own smaller unit in the charge, and uses his own heroics, sense of small-unit tactics, and seeks to inspire and rally his own troops.
That said, I tend to agree that a paladin should be able to Lead any group he is a part of, whether or not he's the technical group leader. For example, when on Taisidon, we have the ranger lead the way through the overgrown jungle - this makes perfect sense, both from a mechnical standpoint (slash slash slash) and from a RP standpoint. However, when those critters ambush us, the paladin should step forward and lead the charge. Why does this require everyone to disband and rejoin? It's just an unnecessary complication. The ranger is still "leading the way", so to speak, but the paladin is most definitely "leading the charge".
Depends on exactly when and where, but yeah, most of the officers tended to lead from the rear, for many reasons, the least of which being they needed a good spot where they could survey and direct the forces without being shot.
However, there's a difference between the general that is trying to coordinate massive military manuevers with thousands of troops, and the front-line officer who stands next to the standard-bearer and shouts "Charge" as he leads the actual attack. The latter is what the paladin Lead ability is all about - the Leading paladin isn't the general in the officers' tent making large-scale tactical plans and making sure they are being coordinated. He's the front-line officer that actually leads his own smaller unit in the charge, and uses his own heroics, sense of small-unit tactics, and seeks to inspire and rally his own troops.
That said, I tend to agree that a paladin should be able to Lead any group he is a part of, whether or not he's the technical group leader. For example, when on Taisidon, we have the ranger lead the way through the overgrown jungle - this makes perfect sense, both from a mechnical standpoint (slash slash slash) and from a RP standpoint. However, when those critters ambush us, the paladin should step forward and lead the charge. Why does this require everyone to disband and rejoin? It's just an unnecessary complication. The ranger is still "leading the way", so to speak, but the paladin is most definitely "leading the charge".
TEVESHSZAT
Re: It makes no sense...
08/03/2002 06:19 PM CDT
I think you guys are seeing what I mean now :)
There's a difference between being the head of the group and being someone who's really in the front of the battle.
Right now, I can hangback at missle range and lead, not doing anything, but if Lennon wanted to lead while at melee with five other people in the group, he wouldn't be able too. And that sounds odd :P
There's a difference between being the head of the group and being someone who's really in the front of the battle.
Right now, I can hangback at missle range and lead, not doing anything, but if Lennon wanted to lead while at melee with five other people in the group, he wouldn't be able too. And that sounds odd :P
RATHA3
Re: It makes no sense...
08/03/2002 06:30 PM CDT
> There's a difference between being the head of the group and being someone who's really in the front of the battle.
Agreed.
Frankly, My direction sense stinks, so it's often easier to let someone else lead the group. But once that happens... I can't cast Courage on the group, I can't Lead... etc etc. Which makes no sense.
"Leading" is a mental thing. Holding hands and leading a group in a game, is a mechanics issue.
Serrin
Agreed.
Frankly, My direction sense stinks, so it's often easier to let someone else lead the group. But once that happens... I can't cast Courage on the group, I can't Lead... etc etc. Which makes no sense.
"Leading" is a mental thing. Holding hands and leading a group in a game, is a mechanics issue.
Serrin
JORDANP
Re: It makes no sense...
08/05/2002 09:37 PM CDT
>How about an ability called "Encourage"?
Or Inspiration, which is really what lead is.
Or Inspiration, which is really what lead is.
LYNEMN
Re: It makes no sense...
08/08/2002 11:19 AM CDT
A paladin does not lead from the rear echelons like a coward. He leads by example.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: It makes no sense...
08/08/2002 11:21 AM CDT
>>A paladin does not lead from the rear echelons like a coward. He leads by example.
Exacatly.
But, right now as long as someone's holding everyone's hand, that = I can lead from missle range while in RF.
But, the Paladin at melee in the thick of battle can't lead.
Exacatly.
But, right now as long as someone's holding everyone's hand, that = I can lead from missle range while in RF.
But, the Paladin at melee in the thick of battle can't lead.
