blackshirt5
First Post
Really like the tactics SHARK. Had my players read them over for my campaign, to let them know the way to do things without dying.
Annoyed with City of the Spider Queen (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter mmu1
- Start date
drnuncheon
Explorer
green slime said:
Once you gain the cohort, they do not level according to the Leadership table, they level with XP - they get a half share of XP from the party's total.
This means that if you're like SHARK, with 16 or so cohorts, you're suddenly dividing the party's XP 12 ways instead of 4. I'd be kind of annoyed if someone showed up with 16 cohorts, because it'd mean they were taking an enormous bite out of my XP. If *everyone* has 16 or so cohorts, well...none of you will be levelling very quickly.
All of this is on page 46, under Cohorts, and again on 147, under Cohorts again.
As for followers, there is definite indication in the DMG that they don't get XP at all, and that unlike cohorts, your followers *are* determined solely by the leadership table. That's on page 45 by the Leadership table: "The character can lead up to the indicated number of characters per level" and on page 46, under Followers: "As the leader's Leadership score rises, he can attract more followers. If his Leadership score goes down, followers may desert."
So if your followers are gaining XP, then they're also continually deserting as they become too powerful for your Leadership score.
J
Tom Cashel
First Post
Not to mention the fact that City of the Spider Queen isn't designed to handle 150 10th level characters.
Kind of takes the challenge out of it.
Not to mention being a bookkeeping/logistical nightmare for everyone involved...
[Hey, mmu1, can you put a SPOILER tag in the Thread Title? Thanks, man.]
Kind of takes the challenge out of it.
Not to mention being a bookkeeping/logistical nightmare for everyone involved...
[Hey, mmu1, can you put a SPOILER tag in the Thread Title? Thanks, man.]
Last edited:
drnuncheon
Explorer
Dr. Strangemonkey said:
Order of casting has no effect on the order of dispelling - it goes from highest caster level to lowest.
J
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Hey there Green Knight!
I would also say that even though cohorts get a share of the experience points, they are worth it in the long run. The recruitment of cohorts provides, as I demonstrated, not only additional "firepower" as it were, but also increased operational flexibility. Bringing along well-equipped followers also enhances these abilities. The group not only has additional options for combat operations, but the group's scouting abilities are enhanced, so that when the group learns about the enemy's whereabouts, the main group can set up to hit them really hard! Furthermore, the group actually has some competent people who can run errands, guard prisoners and extra gear and pack animals, as well as taking care of numerous smaller but still important missions.
Beyond all of these benefits, of course, when the group must assault the huge undead temple filled with vampires and Death Knights, should the group succeed, it seems to me far more plausible for the group to do so while attacking with a reasonably strong force of fifty or so instead of merely four people. For me, having a party of four heroes waltz into some evil fortress and slaughter everyone and win the day just seems to stretch credibility--if the DM is playing the opposition with intelligence and skill. For example, in my own campaigns, when the group prepares to assault some huge fortress or something, and the opposition is high-level, well-organized, and skilled, there is just no way that a group of four heroes are going to have much of a chance. The assumption within the game is that everything will go the player's way. Even allowing for various exigencies of combat, it seems to detract from the heroism and accomplishment if the party succeeds because I, as the DM, pulled punches for the opposition. However, if the party brings their cohorts and followers, though I can expect that the group will do their level best to ruthlessly defeat the enemy, I can rest easy that I can operate the opposition at full strength, and let the chips fall where they may, you know? In such a situation, though the group will suffer casualties, I know that even with the opposition going full-bore, that the group has a reasonable and plausible chance at achieving victory.
When the smoke of battle clears, and the screams of the dying have subsided, the players can be confident that they just succeeded in a great battle against the Forces of Darkness!
I should also note, too, that recruiting cohorts and followers requires not only more gold and effort on your character's part, but that these relationships will also make other social and economic demands upon the character. If the character desires to have an elite force of fanatically loyal cohorts and followers, then the character should be prepared to put in the time, gold, and energy into forming and strengthening such valuable friendships.
Of course, when the player engages in such, these kinds of developments also open up new roleplaying opportunities for everyone involved, and it also increases the plot development and scope of scenarios that the DM can design, for the DM has numerous new characters and different complex relationships in which to deal with.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hey there Green Knight!
I would also say that even though cohorts get a share of the experience points, they are worth it in the long run. The recruitment of cohorts provides, as I demonstrated, not only additional "firepower" as it were, but also increased operational flexibility. Bringing along well-equipped followers also enhances these abilities. The group not only has additional options for combat operations, but the group's scouting abilities are enhanced, so that when the group learns about the enemy's whereabouts, the main group can set up to hit them really hard! Furthermore, the group actually has some competent people who can run errands, guard prisoners and extra gear and pack animals, as well as taking care of numerous smaller but still important missions.Beyond all of these benefits, of course, when the group must assault the huge undead temple filled with vampires and Death Knights, should the group succeed, it seems to me far more plausible for the group to do so while attacking with a reasonably strong force of fifty or so instead of merely four people. For me, having a party of four heroes waltz into some evil fortress and slaughter everyone and win the day just seems to stretch credibility--if the DM is playing the opposition with intelligence and skill. For example, in my own campaigns, when the group prepares to assault some huge fortress or something, and the opposition is high-level, well-organized, and skilled, there is just no way that a group of four heroes are going to have much of a chance. The assumption within the game is that everything will go the player's way. Even allowing for various exigencies of combat, it seems to detract from the heroism and accomplishment if the party succeeds because I, as the DM, pulled punches for the opposition. However, if the party brings their cohorts and followers, though I can expect that the group will do their level best to ruthlessly defeat the enemy, I can rest easy that I can operate the opposition at full strength, and let the chips fall where they may, you know? In such a situation, though the group will suffer casualties, I know that even with the opposition going full-bore, that the group has a reasonable and plausible chance at achieving victory.
When the smoke of battle clears, and the screams of the dying have subsided, the players can be confident that they just succeeded in a great battle against the Forces of Darkness!
I should also note, too, that recruiting cohorts and followers requires not only more gold and effort on your character's part, but that these relationships will also make other social and economic demands upon the character. If the character desires to have an elite force of fanatically loyal cohorts and followers, then the character should be prepared to put in the time, gold, and energy into forming and strengthening such valuable friendships.
Of course, when the player engages in such, these kinds of developments also open up new roleplaying opportunities for everyone involved, and it also increases the plot development and scope of scenarios that the DM can design, for the DM has numerous new characters and different complex relationships in which to deal with.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Ideally, if an adventure's designed for four player characters, there's a reason why four brave heroes must take up the challenge without calling in a larger force.
Maybe the enemy stronghold is impregnable to large-scale assault, but a small band of specialists can sneak in. Maybe the enemy stronghold is inaccessible to a large army. It's underground, in the sky, on the elemental plane of fire, or underwater. Maybe the army's involved somewhere else.
Whatever the case, there should be a reason why the duke's army is inappropriate.
Similar Threads
