Jump to content
Lukeal

5e Power Suggestions

Recommended Posts

Mechanically speaking, I want to make a hero that is a good team leader.
I want to give him abilities/powers that actually make other people better "when they are following his plans" basically.

And then maybe some portion or later increase when they officially become part of his "team' and potentially more if they recognize him as the team leader.

First big question, what do you think about this as a concept as it could be seen as forcing the other people to accept you as leader in some way? Would you resent it as a fellow player?

(Note our group often plays a game of "not it" when it comes to leading the group, so I thought I would turn that on its head and not only embrace it, but make it a benefit)


Was thinking of maybe a minor set of effects like a 1-2 DCs on their attack, an extra CV, some extra defense. Maybe each of these individually or as a group effect.
Basically, not a full core focus of the character, but just that he always makes people working with him better. Maybe small Aid that is AoE?
Thinking maybe up to say 15 real point total cost. Trying not to use any STOP power/skill/talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone will likely come along to give you a passable 5e build  (I'm not terribly qualified for anything after 4, really, and just barely for that).  However, I can't see any way that it's going to be _cheap_, no matter what.

 

but as to your questions and such:

 

43 minutes ago, Lukeal said:

Mechanically speaking, I want to make a hero that is a good team leader.

I want to give him abilities/powers that actually make other people better "when they are following his plans" basically.

 

After reading your reasoning, I totally get why you want to try this: the experience varies from group to group, after all, and you know your players better than any of us likely ever will.  Still, personally, I don't know that a power build is the best way to demonstrate leadership ability, and honestly, what you're describing-- boosting other people's powers, etc, is really more of a rear-support sort of thing (like being the Cleric, way back when ;)  ).

 

Consider skills a good leader should have: tactics is one-- when the leader announces his plan / instructions, perhaps a successful tactics roll, if his instructions are followed, might allow a small bonus to hit, or maybe a DC here and there.   Tie it to a Find Weakness: Usable by Others if you want (still not cheap, but it suggests that the other characters get this bonus or ability by following the lead of the "brilliant tactician" as opposed "Imma do what he say and git sum bonus damitch!"   It's _still_ something of a force, but it's more "this guy has the skills to lead a team"  (at least tactically) and following that leader than it is "defending your crack dealer because he's your connection."

 

You might also consider giving him bonus skill levels to use in cooperative or coordinated maneuvers with his teammates.  Possibly even (I think this was a Stop sign; it was _definitely_ a cautioned ability) a low-level Danger Sense that he can use for himself and his group:  "She-Girl!  behind you!"  etc, etc.  I would even go so far as to allow him to have a couple of over-all Skill Levels usable by others for their own Skills (i.e., not really for combat, unless that floats your boat):  "Detective Man!  What do you make of this?"  And Detective Man feels so inspired that he picked up a +2 on his Cryptography to break the code in the notebook, or something like that.

 

Yes; this will generate a lot of flack that "you can't put power adders on Skill Levels, to which I say  :nya:  .  If this system is truly universal, you can't break it.  And I prefer this approach to just amping up anyone who says "you Big Chief; I follow."  You're going to end up with a "team" of everyone who notices this effect in no time at all.  

 

Granted, these suggestions are still _something_ of a force, but it's a different flavor: I feel it has more that taste of his skill rubbing off on those who pay attention to his lead as opposed to him passing out steroids.

Just my two cents, which you get for free, and I likely overcharged you at that.

 

But if you have made up your mind that this is the way that you want to motivate someone to take the role (and again, you know your people better than we do):

 

 

Quote

And then maybe some portion or later increase when they officially become part of his "team' and potentially more if they recognize him as the team leader.

 

Forgive me; it's not clear to me what you're saying here.  I _believe_ you are saying "even bigger steroids" if the knuckle under to his lead.  Is that correct?  To be clear, I'm not thrilled with the idea of passing out Now and Laters to all the kids who agree to be your friend, but _again_-- I won't tell you it's a bad idea, because...  well, you know your people and I don't.  If this is what it takes, then this is what it takes.

 

Quote

First big question, what do you think about this as a concept as it could be seen as forcing the other people to accept you as leader in some way?

 

Not keen on it, and yes; I see it as an overt force, particularly with that part that "if you agree to let me leader, the bonuses get even bigger."  It's a very obvious force.

 

Quote

Would you resent it as a fellow player?

 

Immensely, _but_-- and it's only fair to explain my point of view: I don't often have trouble with the players assigning a leader, and periodically I have something of a competition.  From this perspective, it would come across to any of my groups as a definite Finger of Favoritism from on high, and I think it would move out from the characters and I'd end up with some disgruntled players.

 

 

Though, as numerous times above:  you know your players better than we do.   Honestly, depending on how well they separate "Player" from "Character," you might even want to just flat-out run the idea by them and see how it goes over.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, this is as a player not forcing as a GM. Appreciate the concerns around forcing, but isn't skill levels or tactics really just a flavor difference in how you are making them better?

One of the challenges of being a leader is that making plans isn't always fun or easy and herding cats can be tiring. I think that providing a motivation for people to follow my lead isn't a bad idea and would intend to be transparent about the very visible strings attached. That, while the actual plan may be simple or even suicidal, following it will have an actual better chance to succeed than winging it or going cowboy. He is just a natural leader and even his bad plans tend to work out better than expected.

I was considering a small aid to 4 char (dex, ego, pd, ed) written up as a pep talk or "planning" session or even a "goooo team!" Hands in cheer type thing with it sticking around for maybe 20m to an hour. Maybe a d6 with the max bought up a little to get 10 pts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a player, I'd resent it. If someone deserves to be a leader, it should be obvious because he leads successfully rather than as a result of handing out bribes (whether in the form of money or power boosts).

 

There's vaguely three kinds of leadership for superhero teams: tactical battlefield, face to the public, and providing strategic direction for team meetings. Sometimes there's a single PC who can do it all flawlessly but more often those strengths are split among several PC's/players. So I vastly prefer splitting leadership responsibilities whenever possible.

 

Player A can lead the discussion which results in us deciding to first investigate the former VIPER base rather than the chemical factory. Player B keeps an eye on the overall battlefield as the confrontation develops at the VIPER base. Player C handles the press conference afterward and the blowback from our less-than-successful handling of the blimp which was designed to carry the chemical weapons over the city.

 

As for dealing with groups of players who all prefer to not lead, I'd suggest they do a rotating chairman for team meetings (say each new play session which requires a team meeting or deciding a strategic direction triggers the "it's your turn to run the meeting and decide if the team can't come to a consensus"). If there's someone who likes roleplaying and who has a charismatic PC, that person could handle the press and public appearances while making it clear that she's acting as the public spokesperson rather than the leader of the team. That'd keep all the baggage of "leadership" from falling on whichever players have good ideas about battlefield tactics and make them feel more free to step up without fear of getting the dreaded "leader" tag.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lukeal said:

First big question, what do you think about this as a concept as it could be seen as forcing the other people to accept you as leader in some way? Would you resent it as a fellow player?

(Note our group often plays a game of "not it" when it comes to leading the group, so I thought I would turn that on its head and not only embrace it, but make it a benefit)

Communication is the key to making this work.  Don't just walk in on the day of the first session and use mechanics to declare yourself the leader.  Talk with your gaming group.  Say "Hey, I want my character to be team leader, is that OK by everyone?".  If everyone's OK with it, great!  If anyone disagrees, shelf the character. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the two previous posters said.

 

Another thing to be wary about it spending too many points on this stuff. If it results in the character being ineffective by themselves, nobody is going to take them seriously as leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Lukeal said:

 isn't skill levels or tactics really just a flavor difference in how you are making them better?

 

Yes; it is.  I believe I admitted as much, straight-away.  It was...  Well, I would have to say "more palatable" than was "I'll make your shooting power more stronger."  :lol:   Being that there is a long-held idea that Leadership is itself a Skill, going with _minor_ Skills boots sat better with me.  I was trying to stay within your parameters of "bribing my followers is okay," yet offer a build that made the bribe both less-tempting and more based on a "simulated tactician."   That is all.

 

55 minutes ago, Lukeal said:

One of the challenges of being a leader is that making plans isn't always fun or easy and herding cats can be tiring. I think that providing a motivation for people to follow my lead isn't a bad idea and would intend to be transparent about the very visible strings attached.

 

Yep.  got that.  But just to go a bit further:  does your GM (since I _now_ see that you are not him) have "campaign limits," and if so, what can you offer a character who is already there?

 

55 minutes ago, Lukeal said:

I was considering a small aid to 4 char (dex, ego, pd, ed) written up as a pep talk or "planning" session or even a "goooo team!" Hands in cheer type thing with it sticking around for maybe 20m to an hour. Maybe a d6 with the max bought up a little to get 10 pts.

 

 

As I also admitted up-front, I'm not the best guy for help there, but 5e has a power called Aid, and one of the sidebars showed a custom build using that with some ridiculously mediaeval-sounding name.  Yes; it's still a word, but it's damned hard to say while both keeping a straight face and _not_ feeling just a little bit like some teenage goth kid offering some other goth kid a chance to taste his nipples in the storage catacombs behind the restroom of a shopping mall....

 

At any rate, that's going to be the base of the builds you're looking at.  It's not cheap, and when you add in Usable by Others-- I _think_ 5e made "many others" and "many others simultaneously" each add even more cost-- and don't forget the Reduced END x2 cost so as too keep from falling out in a dead faint when six "others" are using this power.  I don't remember if Aiding several things at once cost more or not.  And--

 

now _please_ bear in mind that I don't play (or even particularly care for) 5e, mostly because of stuff like this--  You might have to had "no conscious control" or "persistent" or several other things that allow you to "fire and forget" this power so you can do something else while these other folks are doing their thing with your Aid power.

 

Again-- I am not sure about _any_ of that, but I am absolutely _certain_ that someone will take this as a creative exercise and offer you a few options that would work.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far I am finding it interesting that no one (usually) seems to see a problem with making a character with powers that fit a brick or speedster or mentalist role or whatever other archetype, but one that specifically makes you a better leader (mechanically) seems to push a lot of buttons.
Like you don't expect a person playing a brick to actually be super strong in real life but the party leader needs to have real life planning and leadership skills?

Reminds me of people disliking investigations skills as "cheats" because the players "should figure it out themselves". Even if they are playing a batman level super-sleuth, it is sometimes feels wrong to solve the crime with a simple roll.

Even though it is, again, totally OK for, say the brick, to one-shot haymaker a villain and end the encounter. That one roll is fine, the other, seems to rub people the wrong way. (again, personal playstyles vary) And I am liking that I am getting insight into the kinds of feedback I might get from my group.

 

And it isn't like the concept of a person that just makes everyone they work with better is something outside the bounds of experience. Even more so when you push it to a superhuman ability. It is actually one of the things I think builds of say, Cpt America, miss.

Going back to "old school support" ideas, that is exactly what I am trying to avoid... "Hey cleric, hit me with bless, now get out of the way while I violate all the religious tenets of your god using the bonuses you just gave me."

I am intending to RP it (yes, after discussion with my group just like I would if I was trying to fill any archetype) that you can take his leadership, and he will make you better, or you can go your own way, no skin off his nose. They have the choice and the buff comes with a cost and not just a gimme, gimme, gimme those sweet steroids that many support type builds devolve into. And I think it is in the vein of many "leader" archetype where the 'troops' don't have to like you personally, but you will, dammit, make sure they get to the top of that hill.
I am considering working with the GM to take the "follow my plans" out of my control so he can judge when someone is going rogue to the plan. Not just me deciding as there may be information I don't have. Thinking of a way to avoid it feeling adversarial or like punishment when someone decides to go rogue. Or maybe fold some RP element for them into it... like, they have to believe they are "following the plan". I have some tricksy friends and leaving room for them to improvise is probably a good idea. Also, like the effect of maybe needing to "huddle up" mid-combat to "adjust" the plan to keep the bonuses. On the level, that I think the "must be following the plan" will be a 0 limitation really.

The only current campaign limits are that we are starting with low point levels (150 total) and that we can't use any STOP powers, talents or skills (and I am personally assuming no STOP adv/lims though that answer is still pending). So, you could build a glass cannon or something crazy but I am going with the assumed guidelines for a 75/75 character in the book (though without the heroic type limits). The 'world' we are playing in definitely runs the gamut of street to global power scale. But the GM likes to ease the power level of the characters into play. I expect their might be a quick set of earning a lot of xp to start up to a 250pt character so the characters feel more organic and grown.
So, I am thinking about a 50AP cap on the power and I can fit it into an Mental Powers MPP I am thinking of for the character.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something I made for a Captain America-esque tactical leader NPC write-up along those lines. It's for 6e rather than 5e, but it gives the basic idea:

 

40    +4 with All Combat

26    Seasoned Field Commander: Usable Simultaneously for +4 Combat Skill Levels (up to four recipients at once, one at a time, Grantor can take power back, Limited Range, Recipients must remain within LOS; +3/4); Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2); Incantations (-1/4), Recipients Must Hear And Understand Orders (-1/2)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your initially-suggested

26 minutes ago, Lukeal said:

So far I am finding it interesting that no one (usually) seems to see a problem with making a character with powers that fit a brick or speedster or mentalist role or whatever other archetype, but one that specifically makes you a better leader (mechanically) seems to push a lot of buttons.

 

Then look _harder_.

 

No one's buttons are being pushed; lots of people are pointing out that it's not a great simulation of leadership.  No leader on earth makes you better with his presence.  He makes you better (or worse, I suppose.  Not all leaders are good at it) by inspiring you to try harder, or by training you, or by coaching you on teamwork or even drills.  Sometimes, he just inspires you to train yourself.

 

26 minutes ago, Lukeal said:

Like you don't expect a person playing a brick to actually be super strong in real life but the party leader needs to have real life planning and leadership skills?

 

I expect a brick to be strong.  I expect a leader to have leadership.  Call me crazy.  If can't role-play leadership, he can buy the skill: the skills are there for people who don't know how to be able to simulate knowing how, after all.

 

Now for things I _don't_ expect:

 

I don't expect my brick to be weaker because the leader went away.  I don't expect _any_ well-trained, well-disciplined _anybody_ to suddenly suck when they are left to their own devices for a few minutes.  Problematically, that's precisely what your initially-suggested build comes packaged with:  Leader steps out for bit, and the buffs go away.

 

26 minutes ago, Lukeal said:

Reminds me of people disliking investigations skills as "cheats" because the players "should figure it out themselves". Even if they are playing a batman level super-sleuth, it is sometimes feels wrong to solve the crime with a simple roll.

Even though it is, again, totally OK for, say the brick, to one-shot haymaker a villain and end the encounter.

That one roll is fine, the other, seems to rub people the wrong way. (again, personal playstyles vary) And I am liking that I am getting insight into the kinds of feedback I might get from my group.

 

And it isn't like the concept of a person that just makes everyone they work with better is something outside the bounds of experience.

 

Not even a little bit.  The concept of everyone become two steps crappier because the leader went away, though, _is_ outside the bounds of anything that isn't the local Wendy's here in town.

 

Now, I'm not sure why this is the only focus you have, unless you were just waiting for the opportunity to give this speech, but as an actual concept, it's _yours_; do what you want with it.  You asked for questions, and they got answers.  Wether or not you believe it, I _am_ sorry that you don't like them, but I can promise you that they were honest and that, just by the nature of the folks here and the game we're playing, nobody's chain got yanked; nobody's buttons got pressed; nobody's feelings got hurt.  You got answers you didn't like, and that was the extent of it.  

 

Further more, I can still promise you that I _honestly_ believe that _someone_ will offer to help you with this build, if you're patient enough.  hmm.  Seems even as I type this that Matt offered something useful.   Hell, I would have, but you want it for 5e, and I ain't savvy enough in 5e to be much help.  In spite of that, I _did_ offer you some places to start looking.  I don't know if you don't have access to your book right now of if this speech was more important, but what I gave you:

 

1) honest answers to your questions

2) possible alternatives that don't come with an instant de-buff for the leader not being near you

3) things to look at while you're waiting for a better answer.

 

I got nothing else to give you, and I'm starting to think that's a two-way situation.

 

26 minutes ago, Lukeal said:

Going back to "old school support" ideas, that is exactly what I am trying to avoid...

 

Yeah, I got that.  That was the _primary_ reason I offered a workable idea that didn't have much direct-to-damage utility.  You got your buffing up the dudes ability without it having been a purely tactical decision, and you know that those players / characters who want your leadership genuinely want _leadership_, as opposed to free buffs.  

 

Even Matt's suggested build for Captain America doesn't offer Characteristics and Power buffs; it offers four Skill Levels.

 

So here's the thing with the buff's model:

 

My gun gets stronger.  The buff model means that, with your better leadership, my _gun_ becomes stronger.  If I bought an antique 6-shooter at the pawn shop, it picks up two damage classes because I agreed to let you be the leader because my gun would pick up two damage classes if I let you be the leader so that my gun would pick up two damage classes.  My _equipment_ gets better.

 

Now, just as always, you do you, Dude, but that's damned hard to reconcile as "leadership."  We can fake that out as better shooting, I suppose, or we can use the Skill level model and actually get better shooting.

 

That's it.  That's all.  I'm not telling you it's not do-able; I'm not telling you it won't do just what you want it to do.  All I'm saying is that it'd be damned hard for me to reconcile as "leadership," and that's it.  Beyond that, do what you want (or at least what your GM will let you.   ;)  )

 

 

26 minutes ago, Lukeal said:

I am intending to RP it (yes, after discussion with my group just like I would if I was trying to fill any archetype) that you can take his leadership, and he will make you better, or you can go your own way, no skin off his nose. They have the choice and the buff comes with a cost and not just a gimme, gimme, gimme those sweet steroids that many support type builds devolve into. And I think it is in the vein of many "leader" archetype where the 'troops' don't have to like you personally, but you will, dammit, make sure they get to the top of that hill.

 

Once again, that's fine.  It's your character, your group, etc.  If it works for you guys, well it's a done deal, and it doesn't matter what we think.  Hell, what we think isn't even important: it's not _for_ us, ultimately; it's for you folks.

 

26 minutes ago, Lukeal said:

 


I am considering working with the GM to take the "follow my plans" out of my control so he can judge when someone is going rogue to the plan. Not just me deciding as there may be information I don't have. Thinking of a way to avoid it feeling adversarial or like punishment when someone decides to go rogue. Or maybe fold some RP element for them into it... like, they have to believe they are "following the plan". I have some tricksy friends and leaving room for them to improvise is probably a good idea. Also, like the effect of maybe needing to "huddle up" mid-combat to "adjust" the plan to keep the bonuses. On the level, that I think the "must be following the plan" will be a 0 limitation really.

The only current campaign limits are that we are starting with low point levels (150 total) and that we can't use any STOP powers, talents or skills (and I am personally assuming no STOP adv/lims though that answer is still pending). So, you could build a glass cannon or something crazy but I am going with the assumed guidelines for a 75/75 character in the book (though without the heroic type limits). The 'world' we are playing in definitely runs the gamut of street to global power scale. But the GM likes to ease the power level of the characters into play. I expect their might be a quick set of earning a lot of xp to start up to a 250pt character so the characters feel more organic and grown.
So, I am thinking about a 50AP cap on the power and I can fit it into an Mental Powers MPP I am thinking of for the character.
 

 

 

Okay, see?  _That's_ the sort of up-front info that helps out.  However, I think it's going to be harder than I had first thought to fit all the buffs you want into those limits and still have your own unique talents and abilities, simply because of the costs versus the caps of your starting game (if your assumptions are correct, I mean).  You might want to consider reducing the number of things that get buffed, or the extent to which they get buffed.  New Limitations would reduce the actual cost, of course, but they're not going to drop the AP cost.   :(

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lukeal said:

The only current campaign limits are that we are starting with low point levels (150 total)

...

So, I am thinking about a 50AP cap on the power and I can fit it into an Mental Powers MPP I am thinking of for the character.

 

This information makes it sound like a bad idea.

 

150 points is pretty tight, and adding luxury powers like this one is going to come at a cost to the character's overall effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, assault said:

 

This information makes it sound like a bad idea.

 

150 points is pretty tight, and adding luxury powers like this one is going to come at a cost to the character's overall effectiveness.

A slot in a Multipower isn't that much of an added expense.  And with CV, a few dice can go a pretty long way.  Aid (2 1/2)d6 is a good amount to matter but not crush game balance.  That leaves room for +2 1/4 of Advantages if it's in a 50 AP Multipower.  Plenty of room to make it pump OCV and DCV, not cost END, and/or be AoE Selective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, yeah, the "buff" model, in my mind is just a supers model of improved leadership. Just like an Energy Blast that does 10d6 can be a "pistol" SFX in supers.
I don't think you would say, "but you should get Weapon Familiarity" and buy a standard equipment pistol, right? The whole point is to build a super power that is better than what a human can do with a basic skill.
And the SFX of being a super inspiring leader is not really any different than "because my god granted me the boon" or "I am a really skilled gun fighter", so my guns are 10d6 EBs without focus limits and do double knockback because I am a rootin-tootin cowboy, yeehaw!!! You might think you can disarm me, but you can't (*because I paid for it that way) Or would you call that "faking it out as you are a better shooter because _equipment_ doesn't get better"? Because, it does if you pay for it. (or doesn't if you buy it with that limitation).
Adjustment Powers do not necessarily restrict me to a specific SFX for example and the whole point of the power is to make someone else (or yourself) better at something than you are normally. I could have it buff any energy blast (with appropriate build), by saying it increases their steadiness and ability to keep the power on target just a touch longer. Because, "super inspiration/confidence/steadying their nerve". no different than "I have super control over temperature so I can buff fire or ice energy blasts". It is a superhuman justification that doesn't really have to "make sense" when compared to "real equipment". Could you take or build it so you could only buff innate powers? Sure, but saying I have to, because … realism. that is a bit odd tone to me on a champions forum....You could just as easily say I can ONLY buff equipment because I mentally control technology and can just make them work better.

There are innumerable real world examples of leadership (of the non-superhuman variety) vastly increasing the combat effectiveness of followers.. and, yes, utter collapse and "gone to hell in a handbasket" when that leader is removed (or never existed). So not going to get into "it isn't realistic for a super power leadership ability" to do x. y, or z... because super power. And effectiveness of a power is not just CV, DCs are also a stand in for effectiveness when you do hit. Or they wouldn't let you basically sacrifice CVs directly for DCs like they do with say, maneuvers.

 

And yeah, it could mean the group is less effective without me.... Just like you could be less effective without your brick. Or a mentalist or blaster or whatever. Like, yeah the character is nice to have around. weird. Why would you make a character that is useful?
And in the same manner if the group decided they didn't want to use your brick powers and were better off using the mentalist to tank, well, OK, go ahead. Nobody is forcing your character to take advantage of my brick-like powers. it sure does make the party better if they let the brick, brick though.
Which is why I asked for feelings, so I could sort out the sort of landmines I might hit when I bring it up to the actual people I am playing with. And what I am seeing is that making a power that "makes you a good brick" has different feelings issues than a power that "makes you a great leader".
That using certain game mechanics to influence if my character being seen as a leader are not OK, while some are.
PRE and Leadership.. sure...  minor, non-impactful/realistic changes... sure..
Powers... a bribe
But that is why I am not spending a huge amount of CP on it and not making my concept effectiveness hinge on it. Just a bit and if it works out and the players like it, have a reason and justification for expanding it. If it doesn't maybe I will shift it to being able to manage crowds of normals/fodder a bit better by giving them some protection (maybe even add in some extra running by making 2 smaller slots in the MPP that I can fire together) as the MPP groes. Would be pretty cool that when he is overseeing an evacuation, they get out faster and with less damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're just talking minor effects, I don't see a reason your fellow players should have a problem with it. As with everything though, an honest and open discussion with everyone involved is always the best route. Communication is key to any healthy relationship, and that goes for the relationship you have with your fellows.

 

Personally, I would use your concept as a springboard for some good roleplay interaction between my character and yours. Perhaps play out the "learning to accept the leader" story arc that is fairly common in the fiction.

 

As for powers, I run 6e, but they are pretty similar. It sounds like some Aids, maybe with Requires a Roll on Tactics or Leadership (if you want to really represent that super skill level). I did like the the Invocation limitation from above, but with communications technology being what it is, I don't know that I would limit to must remain in LoS.

 

If your building this character with mental powers, you could consider a Mind Link for your group and limit to only people in that. Basically simulating a "group think" kind of deal and allowing the ability to pass your orders/directions easily.

 

Just some thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, given the fact that STOP powers (and presumably Advantages) are not allowed, this means that you can't use Usable on Others, making this concept quite a bit harder. There are come cool effects you can come up with though (even with as willful a team as we are). First off, we can assume all these powers will have Incantations in the form of issuing orders. If you are silenced, nobody can benefit from your orders.

 

Battlefield Awareness: Change Environment affecting CV (you tell the others the best place to attack from)

Rally Morale: Aid to STUN and END (reinforcing their will to fight)

Inspiring Speech: Aid to PRE (make them far less likely to hesitate when attacking a big bad)

Coordinate Attack: (This one is a little sketchy but I can't think of another good way to do it). Overall Combat Levels, Area Affect (Radius), Selective

 

Looking forward to seeing what you do with the character!

For the general thread followers, this group has been together for about 30 years playing different games, and there are quirks about the players that lend itself very well to *someone* stepping into a leadership role, so I don't think it will be much of an issue getting the players on board...the mechanics of the character is pretty intriguing though.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 3:22 PM, Lukeal said:

Mechanically speaking, I want to make a hero that is a good team leader.
I want to give him abilities/powers that actually make other people better "when they are following his plans" basically.

And then maybe some portion or later increase when they officially become part of his "team' and potentially more if they recognize him as the team leader.

First big question, what do you think about this as a concept as it could be seen as forcing the other people to accept you as leader in some way? Would you resent it as a fellow player?

(Note our group often plays a game of "not it" when it comes to leading the group, so I thought I would turn that on its head and not only embrace it, but make it a benefit)


Was thinking of maybe a minor set of effects like a 1-2 DCs on their attack, an extra CV, some extra defense. Maybe each of these individually or as a group effect.
Basically, not a full core focus of the character, but just that he always makes people working with him better. Maybe small Aid that is AoE?
Thinking maybe up to say 15 real point total cost. Trying not to use any STOP power/skill/talent.

 

This is the same situation that the X-Men face with Professor X as the team leader, who makes the strategic decisions, while Cyclops is in tactical command because of the Professor's limited mobility.  The character could be like Nick Fury sending his Agents out on missions, and giving them objectives or targets but letting the Agents find the best way to accomplish the goals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 7:06 PM, Lukeal said:

So far I am finding it interesting that no one (usually) seems to see a problem with making a character with powers that fit a brick or speedster or mentalist role or whatever other archetype, but one that specifically makes you a better leader (mechanically) seems to push a lot of buttons.
Like you don't expect a person playing a brick to actually be super strong in real life but the party leader needs to have real life planning and leadership skills?

Reminds me of people disliking investigations skills as "cheats" because the players "should figure it out themselves". Even if they are playing a batman level super-sleuth, it is sometimes feels wrong to solve the crime with a simple roll.

Even though it is, again, totally OK for, say the brick, to one-shot haymaker a villain and end the encounter. That one roll is fine, the other, seems to rub people the wrong way. (again, personal playstyles vary) And I am liking that I am getting insight into the kinds of feedback I might get from my group.

 

And it isn't like the concept of a person that just makes everyone they work with better is something outside the bounds of experience. Even more so when you push it to a superhuman ability. It is actually one of the things I think builds of say, Cpt America, miss.

 

Yes, it may well be a thing that many roleplayers tend to be sensitive to being bossed / bullied / told what to do. A fellow player attempting to lead, even with the best of intentions, and incorporating that into their character concept often triggers at least one person at the table at some level. There are ways to do it, of course, but if one or more people like that are in your group the game mechanics isn't the problem...it's a social contract issue.

 

On the other hand in some groups it isn't a problem at all, and if that is your case then there are the obvious buff / support type abilities available to allow the "leader" to incentivize people following their lead. In 5e you can also do interesting things with Negative Skill Levels, such as this ability:

 

13   2)   Hit Him In The Gut -- He's Weak There:  Negative Combat Skill Levels (-2 to opponent's DCV), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Ranged (+1/2), IPE (Fully Invisible; +1) (30 Active Points); Only Vs Opponent Which Find Weakness Has Succeeded Against (-1), Must Be Able To Communicate "Weak Spot" To Others For Them To Take Advantage Of It (-1/4)

 

And other "shot caller" type abilities that allow the "leader" to single out the target they want the rest of the team to focus on...those team members who follow the leaders direction benefit from it and those who do their own thing don't.

 

There are also "rally" type abilities, such as the following (this is a 6e build but the same type of thing is avail in 5e...the character this comes from has a suite of "Only Usable In Hopeless Situations" abilities, of which this is just one) which allow a "leader" type character to reinvigorate their team under various circumstances...such as on the brink of a total party wipe or when things have gone very wrong:

 

36   24)   Inspirational Aid STUN 5d6, Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger requires a Turn or more to reset, Character does not control activation of personal Trigger; When "Only In Hopeless Situations" Abilities Become Available; +1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (16m Radius; +3/4), Selective (+1/4) (82 Active Points); Only Usable In Hopeless Situations (-1)

 

Communication abilities are also obviously very useful to a leader...so that their team can receive their directions.

 

Etc.

 

Another approach is find out if your playgroup is cool with you making a flag suit or explicit team leader upfront and if they are ask them how they would expect you as the leader to support the team. Make a list, and try to include some of that into your build. The other players are more likely to be receptive to you using such abilities if they themselves suggested them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

Yes, it may well be a thing that many roleplayers tend to be sensitive to being bossed / bullied / told what to do. A fellow player attempting to lead, even with the best of intentions, and incorporating that into their character concept often triggers at least one person at the table at some level. There are ways to do it, of course, but if one or more people like that are in your group the game mechanics isn't the problem...it's a social contract issue.

 

 

Thank you. That was exactly what I was trying to express.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...