Companions - Bringing Back Leadership

[CapnZapp]

Basically, my design goal was to bring back the 3e idea of a character having an "extra companion" or "helper" that has a relatively minor cost (like a feat).

Anyway, what I was trying to do was create companions that weren't useful in combat.

Either you were unclear or I only skimmed your introduction, because you're obviously aiming for the henchmen aspect of the Leadership feat. While I responded to the cohort aspect.

I understand the "action economy" aspects, but feel the Beastmaster attempt at a solution to be very artificial.

To me, if you don't want the extra characters to be useful in combat, simply prevent them from being of a level high enough to be useful in combat.

On the other hand, if a rule allows an extra character to be of a level high enough to actually be useful in combat, you need to give it its own set of actions, or things will feel very strange indeed. (Especially considering we're not talking about a magical summoning spell or mystic bond here. We're talking about a perfectly normal NPC in a game where all other NPCs have their own actions).

So the henchmen aspect of that old feat is probably okay to import wholesale. Sure, I would have liked a rule that integrated better with paragon paths more, but as a quick fix, it's okay. (I don't have my 3E books here, but, wait... *checking SRD* ...yes, the feat never allows a henchman who isn't at least one tier lower than yourself, so it's good to go)


Regarding cohorts on the other hand; in short: 1) don't impose a mechanical cost - this can never be balanced and will take control away from the DM 2) don't impose action restrictions on the cohort - basically because it does not make any sense.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I agree, an NPC should have actions. I think the way around this whole quandry is just to bag the idea that you need a feat. I find that awkward. The henchman/hireling is an NPC and they do whatever they do based on loyalty, greed, etc. There could certainly be a feat that provides enhanced ability to lead.

So my focus on such a rule mechanic would be some sort of leadership/morale kind of system that provides the DM an easy framework for deciding what the NPC will DO when ordered to do something or when they have a choice to make in the course of doing whatever they do on behalf of their employer/benefactor/leader.

The outlined RS system seems like it could be that mechanic, it seems to me fundamentally similar to rules from ODD days. I don't recall henchmen being a problem back then and it doesn't seem like they should be a problem now. One might argue about 'economy of action', but the DM is in control of the NPC. Nobody is getting 'extra actions'. If the DM wants to simplify his life and let the player pick the NPCs actions that is really up to him. He can always veto anything he doesn't want to have happen. Using something like RS then is just a way for the DM to quickly decide "will this NPC mercenary leap into the battle to save his employer?" It is actually pretty much like the 'concordance' rules for artifacts.

Remember, there are practical costs to using henchmen. They have to be paid or at least paid FOR (squires DO eat). They also have to be directed if they are going to DO anything. If you just yell "help me" to your henchman that's a free action, but if you want to explain to him what you need him to do in detail in the heat of battle, then you're going to be burning actions. This would become even more of an issue for the PC if say he's trying to direct a bevy of henchmen in battle, he's going to spend 100% of his time watching them and telling them what to do, becoming a military commander instead of a hero. If DMs and players WANT to play that way I don't see any reason why they can't.

In my long experience playing FRPG I don't really recall very many henchman problems coming up. Generally they just aren't worth the players trouble.

 

[Alex319]

Either you were unclear or I only skimmed your introduction, because you're obviously aiming for the henchmen aspect of the Leadership feat. While I responded to the cohort aspect.

I guess I'm a little unclear on this. What's the difference between a "henchman" and a "cohort"?

To me, if you don't want the extra characters to be useful in combat, simply prevent them from being of a level high enough to be useful in combat.

On the other hand, if a rule allows an extra character to be of a level high enough to actually be useful in combat, you need to give it its own set of actions, or things will feel very strange indeed. (Especially considering we're not talking about a magical summoning spell or mystic bond here. We're talking about a perfectly normal NPC in a game where all other NPCs have their own actions).

Very good point, and one that I'll take into account. Maybe what I'll do is have all henchmen be 1st level for purposes of attack bonuses etc., but maybe have something to up their defenses and skills so they'll at least be useful in other areas and won't end up auto-killed at the first sign of trouble.

So the henchmen aspect of that old feat is probably okay to import wholesale. Sure, I would have liked a rule that integrated better with paragon paths more, but as a quick fix, it's okay. (I don't have my 3E books here, but, wait... *checking SRD* ...yes, the feat never allows a henchman who isn't at least one tier lower than yourself, so it's good to go)

Well, he can attract a cohort of up to 2 levels lower, which is only about 1/5 of a "tier."

Yeah, I agree, an NPC should have actions. I think the way around this whole quandry is just to bag the idea that you need a feat. I find that awkward. The henchman/hireling is an NPC and they do whatever they do based on loyalty, greed, etc. There could certainly be a feat that provides enhanced ability to lead.

That's probably a good idea. It will also make it more balanced. As already discussed, the number of restrictions you would need to put on an NPC to lower his power enough to make him only worth about as much as a feat is is so high that it's unlikely to be worth bothering with. But you could have a feat that made a more powerful cohort slightly more powerful, and it would be more balanced.

The outlined RS system seems like it could be that mechanic, it seems to me fundamentally similar to rules from ODD days. I don't recall henchmen being a problem back then and it doesn't seem like they should be a problem now. One might argue about 'economy of action', but the DM is in control of the NPC. Nobody is getting 'extra actions'. If the DM wants to simplify his life and let the player pick the NPCs actions that is really up to him. He can always veto anything he doesn't want to have happen. Using something like RS then is just a way for the DM to quickly decide "will this NPC mercenary leap into the battle to save his employer?" It is actually pretty much like the 'concordance' rules for artifacts.

Yes, the "concordance" rules for artifacts were part of what gave me the idea for the RS system.

In my long experience playing FRPG I don't really recall very many henchman problems coming up. Generally they just aren't worth the players trouble.

Forgive my ignorance, but what's FRPG?

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry if I was unclear: by "cohort" I specifically mean a creature with capabilities in the same league as the PCs themselves.

When I don't use the term "cohort" I'm referring to low-level followers suitable only for things like guarding your house back home, or annoyingly follow you around in worship. ;p

---

I also think the artefact rules are a good starting-point for cohorts. Artefacts and cohorts share a lot of traits, most importantly that they both give a single PC bonuses and abilities that need not be matched by the other PCs.

If cohorts are redefined to only be around for a while, perhaps until an adventure is concluded, or the PC has reached an important personal goal of his, that could make them more palatable than the 3E version (which in all honesty only was a way for a PC to grab more than his share of the spotlight, unless all characters had a cohort each).

PS. FRPG normally just means Fantasy Role Playing Games.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, he can attract a cohort of up to 2 levels lower, which is only about 1/5 of a "tier."

Again, I was talking about henchmen, the people that can't be more than 10 levels lower. (And 10 levels happens to equal one tier in 4E). Sorry about any confusion.

Incidentally, as I remember it, Leadership gave you a cohort that could be up to one level lower.

Did this change between 3.0 and 3.5?

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

Breaking from the pack, I think this is actually a great idea. SWSE just added a 'followers' mechanic that costs only a Talent and gives you what is in 4E terms a beast companion! This mechanic doesn't even provide you with a workable combat ally - just a series of static bonuses skinned as a person.

While the RS mechanic is a bit complicated for 4E's design, I think it's still workable. I would probably eliminate it or at least tone it down somehow. The benefits of having such a companion smell like a Paragon Path to me - instead of it costing a feat, make it an option that can be taken instead of Paragon Path/Multiclassing. Heroic Tier characters shouldn't be well-known or famous enough anyway to have attracted such a sidekick, IMHO.

 

[Jack7]

I would appreciate it if you addressed the hiring of low end minions. I think your loyalty/motivation scheme is good.

Thank you,
Smeelbo

I agree with this. Your motivation scheme is good.

I also agree with those Alex who want to emphasize the difference between companions who are with the character because of similarities, of various kinds, versus other types of motivations, like they are just attracted (for some reason) to the service of the character.

These could be entirely different types of companions with entirely different functions, including very different combat/non-combat functions.

You could have retainer companions, heroic or cohort companions (people who adventure with you, i.e.. the squire) and if necessary serve as men at arms, apprentice companions, servants attracted to you by reputation, etc. And each could serve different functions though those functions could certainly overlap when necessary or needed.

I also like the idea that you addressed the general leadership issue, and that you developed some companions who exhibit a basically apprenticeship relationship (something I also feel is missing from the game, but shouldn't be).

Now I also don't like the idea of leadership being a feat, rather I prefer it being a function of profession (class, in game terms), character charisma and sociability, player desire, milieu or setting appropriateness, and i think role play should be the natural methodology of how to address these things.

But I think your ideas could serve as a good "idea template" of how to address leadership weakness functions in the game.

I consider things like this horizontal expansion of character capabilities (wider use of capabilities, like position, class, attributes, etc.), rather than vertical progression (a function of level progression).

But I like what you've done generally.
It has given me some ideas.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, it would probably help to have some definitions. As I see it there are several categories of NPCs that could be 'attached to' a character in some fashion. Not all of them have to use the same mechanic.

A 'hireling' would be some sort of NPC which is employed by the PC in some capacity. Generally that would be a specific purpose and they would not be a character class. More likely they would be a specialist of some kind, a scribe, armourer, etc. They're not usually likely to be part of an encounter except incidentally. Thus they really don't need any sort of mechanic, they're just NPCs. The butler in your mansion is such a character. If there is a question about their loyalty, then a Charisma check can be made to determine if the butler takes a bribe to allow thieves into the mansion while you're gone. The RS system or something similar can supply modifiers.

The next type would be a 'henchman'. This would be your NPC that is hired by the PC as an adjunct to the party. They are unlikely to be near the level of the PCs (or why wouldn't they just adventure on their own). They are doubly unlikely to be above heroic tier regardless of the levels of the PCs. Essentially they would like a hireling, but their function is to fight for you, and again RS can work as outlined as a morale system for them.

A 'follower' would be a whole different category of thing. This would be your squire or companion of some sort. This guy is dedicated to your cause and is an adjunct to your character. I think they still need to have independent actions, but they could be acquired via a paragon path for instance. They would always be N levels lower than the PC and might provide certain minor static bonuses like maintaining your armor (reduces ACP by one or movement penalty by 1 or somesuch). They might also use the RS system, but they are generally loyal and probably wouldn't run away for instance in a fight unless the battle is lost.

Actually as far as general leadership goes it can just use the Diplomacy and Insight skills, which can already be boosted by feats. There could be a leadership skill specifically, but it isn't necessary and adding skills is probably too much additional game mechanics.