Leadership x4?

[clark411]

A couple fireballs, or one Firebrand (5th level spell in Magic of Faerun), and all those followers, all of them, are so much ash and cinder.

God HELP them if you throw a couple PrC types at them. One War Wizard of Cormyr (MoF PrC) with a single Firebrand, and thousands of follower-grade troops die per spell. Sorceror(8)/WWoC(5) ... drop (under 3.0 rules) a trebly-Widened Firebrand, generating thirteen 20'-radius bursts of 13d6[fire] damage. As a standard action, due to the free Widen and double-benefit Widen abilities of the WWoC class. What's worse is, as a full-round action, it can be empowered too. How many "gumby troops" can handle 13d6 of empowered fire damage?

Few, if any, I'd say.

Absolutely correct. That totally balances the possibility of stretching the rules / destroying the realism. If the Dm doesn't like it, he can always just bring in a lone War Wizard and put the smackdown (assuming FR rules and FR spells are allowed to stomp this PHB/DMG issue). The same can probably be said for anything, really. Address player powerplay with DM powerplay- and enjoy the fact that the DM always wins. Yeesh. All this will accomplish is animosity from the players or worse, a power spiral as players think the campaign is getting tougher and they have to toughen up along with it.

One of my favorite "clueless DM mantras" is "Well, a Terrasque will fix just about anything!"

As stated above, simply blowing up the problem doesn't change the fact that it's a potential issue. In fact, it just heightens it as the DM uses a rather unrealistic opponent to fight an unrealistic scenario created by the PCs. The world compensates for the silliness with more silliness... and the PCs hardly suffer, they just get those followers back, identically if they design them. Would you pin your War Wizard showing up and getting the drop on them when modifying their leadership score?

It's much better to just say, from the get go, "no" to such a problem rather than blasting it into the outer planes in game and then penalizing them for allowing it to happen. If no penalization happens, the process can just be restarted... in other words- it's no solution.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Know what's worse? High-cha player with a high-cha cohort with a high-cha cohort with a high-cha cohort...Good Lord it was disgusting Luckily that campaign broke down and the player decided to buid a city. He even built it with his own gp. By the by, I think that followers get gp using the NPC money chart, so each one is going to have a minimum of 900 gp to start with.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I guess the first thing to ask your players is how do they plan to use their cohorts and followers.

If they do want to raise and play a small army, well, I guess that can be cool, but D&D isn't the system to run it IMO.

AR

 

[Pax]

Absolutely correct. That totally balances the possibility of stretching the rules / destroying the realism. If the Dm doesn't like it, he can always just bring in a lone War Wizard and put the smackdown (assuming FR rules and FR spells are allowed to stomp this PHB/DMG issue). The same can probably be said for anything, really. Address player powerplay with DM powerplay- and enjoy the fact that the DM always wins. Yeesh. All this will accomplish is animosity from the players or worse, a power spiral as players think the campaign is getting tougher and they have to toughen up along with it.

Animosity how? Since the followers are a self-replenishing "resource" (albeit at ever-smaller numbers, if the PC is cavalier about the losses), all tha happens is, the PC has a mass funeral to attend, and is "sans flunkies" for a moderate length of gametime.

Plus he's learned not to bring all of his followers around on every adventure.

As stated above, simply blowing up the problem doesn't change the fact that it's a potential issue. In fact, it just heightens it as the DM uses a rather unrealistic opponent

The WWoC was a "worst case scenario", not the entirety of what I pointed out. ANY wizard or sorceror with a Firebrand can likely catch most, if not all, of those 120 Repeating-Crossbow armed followers with a single spell. With Fireball, it might take 2-3 spells.

And if you mean to say that ALL arcane spellcasters are unrealistic opponents ... then your campaign doesn't resemble Core D&D very much, IMO.

Heck. Generic "evil necromancer raising an army of undead" plotline; give the necromancer Subdual Substitution and Widen Spell, and let him go to town -- his undead troops're immune, the PC's followers (or, for that matter, ANY living troops sent to stop the necromancer) are not.

It's much better to just say, from the get go, "no" to such a problem rather than blasting it into the outer planes in game and then penalizing them for allowing it to happen. If no penalization happens, the process can just be restarted... in other words- it's no solution.

It's better to point out how quickly the lot of them will die, and what sorts of penalties that COULD entail ... and then let the players make the choice. Being a GM isn't about restricting the players to only the GOOD choices, it's about fairly adjudicating the results OF their choices ... good, bad, or indifferent.

 

[Pax]

Know what's worse? High-cha player with a high-cha cohort with a high-cha cohort with a high-cha cohort...Good Lord it was disgusting Luckily that campaign broke down and the player decided to buid a city. He even built it with his own gp.

Actually, there's an easy fix to that, IMO: simply rule that Cohorts who take Leadership stop being able to beCohorts at all; the nature of being a Leader is that you're noone's lap-dog.

 

[maddman75]

Personally, I wouldn't let cohorts take leadership. And as stated in the DMG rather clearly, followers do not accompany PCs on dangerous tomb-robbing missionsH^H^H^H^adventures. Most would desert if given such an order, unless there were a darn good reason for them to do so.

As for the situation, I say let them go for it. As long as you are willing to be flexible in what your campaign will look like, let them raise a small army. First, you arrange for them to aquire (ie, kill the current occupants) of a keep or small castle. When the take their leadership feats, the followers hear of the new lords and come to work in exchange for a new home and protection. Now you have a ton of plot hooks - something threatening their newly founded kingdom, politics with neighboring nations, etc. And they have a home base to return to from their adventures. For 4 PCs and 4 cohorts, just remember to use a lot more creatures - a single BBEG is going to be dust in a round or two. And calculate CR as if they were a level or two higher, otherwise they'll get a ton of XP.

 

[Pielorinho]

Absolutely correct. That totally balances the possibility of stretching the rules / destroying the realism. If the Dm doesn't like it, he can always just bring in a lone War Wizard and put the smackdown (assuming FR rules and FR spells are allowed to stomp this PHB/DMG issue). The same can probably be said for anything, really. Address player powerplay with DM powerplay- and enjoy the fact that the DM always wins. Yeesh. All this will accomplish is animosity from the players or worse, a power spiral as players think the campaign is getting tougher and they have to toughen up along with it.

Clark, I think you're missing the point.

When the follower died IMC, it wasn't due to a WWOC with Firebrand; it was due to the first wandering monster encounter that came along. Maybe two or three galeb duhrs (sp?) living in the swamp, or something like that. And that was llucky for the PCs, too: had the galeb duhr not pulverized one of the followers, then the next battle (versus a telekinetic ghostly black dragon with a 2d10-hp-damage gaze attack) would've killed off all of the followers in a couple of rounds.

These weren't encounters designed to smash followers; they were simply encounters designed to challenge 9th-level characters. A second level character is going to have a very hard time surviving such an encounter.

I've seen followers participate in one other battle: in a dungeon crawl I play in, we were attacked by a wave of bad guys, ending with a high-level cleric and wizard and three giant skeletons. We were exhausted from the previous waves and retreated to our base of operations, where we had fortifications and a stone golem guardian.

The cleric laid down, in rapid succession, a mass command (putting all the followers to sleep) and an insect plague (doing damage every round to everyone). It took almost all our remaining resources to save the followers from certain death. They didn't get to make a single attack during the battle, despite having crossbows and 9/10 cover.

Followers simply aren't effective in regular battles, in my experience. A DM who designs encounters to kill off followers is doing unnecessary work: just about any encounter appropriate to the party's level is going to overwhelm the followers.

Daniel

 

[wraith8]

In my opinion, cohorts who only exist to fulfill a purpose for their masters, i.e, rogue with fighter for flanking, mage with barbarian for tanking, fighter with a cleric for teleporting and healing (if he has travel domain...), should be allowed, but the game should get harder....


I.E. have monsters that cannot be flanked, in case of the rogue. Now unless the wizard in the party can make him invisable or blind the monster or the rogue can feint, the rogue's cohort is useless.

For a fighter with cleric, introduce places with perm dim anchor and occasionally, monsters with antimagic field....


Followers, you just have to make sure they're smart with them...
Let them control tlhem, not you...

But cohorts just means you need to step it up a notch...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oskar, Kili, Servus, Horazon, John Doe....
Join Proving grounds at rpol for FAIR 15th level arena play.
Join Exodus for FAIR 25th level arena play.
Join Valhalla for UNFAIR CHEATING $#%^&*@s running an arena...

 

[Pielorinho]

wraith, that's a strange perspective. If someone takes point blank shot as a feat, do you specifically introduce creatures with immunity to ranged attacks? If they take spell focus: enchantment, do you load up on the creatures immune to mind-affecting attacks? Do you respond to the extra turning feat by eliminating undead from your game?

Why penalize a player for taking a particular feat? Any feat the PC takes ought to help them meet the game's challenges; it's generally bad form to design challenges specifically to negate a PC's abilities.

(On the other hand, a good DM may well design a challenge to highlight the abilities of a particular PC).

My point is that followers are lousy fighters even when the DM isn't metagaming.

Daniel

 

[jgsugden]

Leadership is specifically subject to DM approval. If you think it will upset the game, don't allow it. Explain why and see if you can figure out a way to keep the players happy without disrupting the balance of the game.

By itself, leadership is (by far) the most powerful feat in the game. If only the cohort adventures with the party, it gives the party:

1.) An extra set of actions, and
2.) The abilities of a PC class 2 levels (usually) behind the PC taking the feat.

In effect, this is like:

1.) An improved version of 3.0 haste, and
2.) Multiclassing and gaining a bunch of levels for free.

If you start taking followers with you to use wands, stabilize allies, etc ... you start to get ridiculous benefits for a very small cost.

When you consider it under those terms, you need to provide limits on feat to keep it from being outrageous.

Here are a few suggestions:

1.) Cohorts, even though often controlled by players, are not PCs. Generate them like NPCs. The DMG recommends the elite array for ability scores (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 08). They start with a few weak magic items. Followers should be weaker. I'd suggest the nonelite array from the MM (13, 12, 11, 10, 09, 08).

2.) The DM should build these NPCs ... let the PC say what race, class and alignment, but then the DM should select the order of ability scores, the gear, the spells known, personality, etc ... The goal should be to make a fleshed out NPC, not an optimized party aid. The DM should not design the cohort to be like other NPCs. It should *not* be designed to 'screw' the PCs (ie; a kleptomaniac in a LG party, etc ...)

3.) Players like to control cohorts, but that doesn't mean they *should* always control cohorts. Make sure the players know that the cohort is not a PC. It is an NPC with a personality of its own. The players need to follow that personality. If they can't, inform them that you'll need to run the cohort. Inform them that even though they might play the cohort perfectly, you might still need to assume control every once in a while.

4.) Read pg 104 in the 3.5 DMG regarding cohorts. Cohorts seek out a deal with the PC with leadership. A paladin cohort following a LG cleric might do so out of duty, but most PCs want a cut of the treasure. They may also demand funds up front.

5.) Cohorts begin as loyal followers. Mistreated cohorts may become disloyal see pg 104 of the DMG). How do you determine if a cohort has been mistreated? That is up to the DM. I'd suggest that if the cohort felt mistreated, that should suffice. Also, if the cohort is a member of an organization (church, thieve's guild, knighthood, mage's guild, etc ...) that disapproves of the use of the cohort, they might order him to leave his master.

6.) Cohorts are subservient. They should always be thought of as having a well defined relationship to their master. For instance, the cohort could be a squire, bodyguard, or a sidekick. Sancho Panza to Don Quixote. Robin to Bataman. A palace guard to a king. If the relationship looks more like Skywalker to Obi-wan Kenobi, you have a problem. The NPC should be primarily concerned with the PC that they serve, not with the party agenda.

7.) Cohorts and followers, as NPCs, should have lives of their own. Family obligations. Social interests. Opinions. History. Your halfing bard cohort might have run afoul of the law in some kingdom. He may have a wife and children that he needs to ee from time to time. He may have agreed to read to the orphans once a month. He may think all humans are racists because they build everything so big. I know a lot of people. There is nobody in my life that doesn't have something about them - an opinion, a character trait, something that happenned in their past - that I need to consider when dealing with them. NPC cohorts should have these issues.

Once again, these things should not be done to 'screw' the PC selecting leadership. They should be done to keep the cohort in balance and to treat the cohort like any other NPC. In the end, the leadership feat is still too strong, but a good DM can keep it from breaking the game balance entirely.