Leadership x4?

[MarauderX]

How would you handle 4 PCs each with the Leadership feat? Keep in mind that they would like to run each of the cohorts and direct each of the followers themselves, effectively raising a small army between them when they take this feat. Would it be too burdensome to run a game this way? Or would you let the players keep track of all the details for each one of them? Or would you even let all of the players take the feat at the same time?

Players get pretty jazzed about big plans like this, so it could really happen, and I wouldn't want it to muck up game time or slow things down. I was thinking that a RBDM (Rat Bastard DM) might just have the followers be the same people for each of the PCs with leadership, just taking the number from the highest leadership score.

Some other things to consider are whether they would be an instant workforce, doing what the leader wishes more or less for free compared with having to pay for building structures. I was thinking the PCs would have to pay to house and feed any followers that would be workers and figured roughly the cost and time would be about the same without looking anything up.

There are some pitfalls that may need to be avoided, and simply wiping out the followers for whatever method is a bit harsh just to avoid confusion. The PCs could be wrapped up in adventures just for them, but then they miss the fun of pushing weenie subordinates around. Anyone have any experience with some middle ground or handling similiar situations?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I wouldn't do anything like having them all have the same followers - that would burn me pretty badly.

One idea I had for situations like this is to insist that each player plays someone else's cohort. Let the player create the cohort, but have a different player run them. This would stop a lot of the cohort/PC item/gold swapping that I've seen.

It kind of requires that the players are willing to play (even as a secondary character) a subordinate. Some players simply find it near impossible to take orders from anyone, like a cohort should.

As far as the followers go, I'd let them direct them to a certain extent. Remember that for the most part, followers aren't going to be adventuring with the party like the cohorts would. If they do that, they will likely have a much smaller cadre of followers the second time out.

The ideal use for the followers is to handle all those little things that the PC's can't - managing the base of operations, selling excess magic items, making the masterwork weapons that the wizard will then enchant, etc.

The followers shouldn't work for free - they need some form of compensation, whether its a grant of land for them to till (a kind of feudal arrangement) or a regular wage. For PC's though, most followers wages won't put much of a dent in his coffers.

 

[Pielorinho]

How would you handle 4 PCs each with the Leadership feat? Keep in mind that they would like to run each of the cohorts and direct each of the followers themselves, effectively raising a small army between them when they take this feat. Would it be too burdensome to run a game this way? Or would you let the players keep track of all the details for each one of them? Or would you even let all of the players take the feat at the same time?

Oh, they're just BEGGING for a fireball, aren't they?

After the first battle the followers IMC participated in, one of them was dead, and the others were alive only due to the fervent attentions of the cohort. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and you don't bring second-level warriors to an EL12 encounter.

One raise dead and 500 gp later (yay 3.0 edition!), the player decided that the followers were best off remaining back at camp .

Daniel

 

[marshaldwm]

How would you handle 4 PCs each with the Leadership feat? Keep in mind that they would like to run each of the cohorts and direct each of the followers themselves, effectively raising a small army between them when they take this feat. Would it be too burdensome to run a game this way? Or would you let the players keep track of all the details for each one of them? Or would you even let all of the players take the feat at the same time?

If you only have four players, and the cohorts are well-chosen to balance the party, I do not see why not.

But if you have players who ae not taking the leadership feat, I would watch out, especially if the cohorts are coming along on a semi-permenant basis. Some players might get jealous of the player with two characters, as they can do twice as much and steal twice the limelight.

Also the problem of "Me and my cohort can kick your #$#" to resolve disputes. (For rather immature players only, to be sure)

IMC I am much more inclined to not have cohorts that travel with the party unless the total party size is under eight. I would rather have an extra living breathing player than an extra sheet of paper sitting in front of the same guy.

 

[Pax]

I was thinking that a RBDM (Rat Bastard DM) might just have the followers be the same people for each of the PCs with leadership, just taking the number from the highest leadership score.

That's not just Rat Bastard DMing, that's unfair. For the most part, followers aren't going to be going on adventures with te PCs; they'll be back operating farms on the PC's land (if any), taking care of the PC's home, and so on. Commoners and Warriors of 1st to 4thelvel (for PCs of 6th to 10th level, say) just aren't going to LIVE very long on an actual adventure.

Some other things to consider are whether they would be an instant workforce, doing what the leader wishes more or less for free compared with having to pay for building structures.

The PC still has to feed and clothe his followers; they don't come entirely free. If he leaves them free to pursue their own crafts (farming, shoemaking, etc), he won't profit by them except, perhaps, by being able to gt relevant products at materials cost, rather than retail.

As for structures: he still needs to buy the tools, and the materials. And, ofc, is not relieved of the need to clothe and feed hsi followers.

Nor provide some degree of medical care, even if only the utter basics.

I was thinking the PCs would have to pay to house and feed any followers that would be workers and figured roughly the cost and time would be about the same without looking anything up.

House, feed, and equip ... if s/he wants sentries for his manor house, make him buy some leather armor and shortspears ... 2 suits of armor and 3-4 spears per guard (spares to account for breakage).

 

[clark411]

I'm opposed to players running their own cohorts if for no other reason than the super-amazing level of teamwork two characters run by the same person seem to have. I'm very much for the chaos of battle when one player moves into the spot another player was planning to go, or the wizard has to hustle 30 ft west so his lightning bolt won't slam into the barbarian who just partial charged into the line he expected to have.

When perfect pincer movements are pulled off, and when players start designing tactics primarily within their own character pairs, the game becomes substantially easier and, in my opinion, quite the bit less interesting and diverse. When the cohort cleric exists only to Shield Other the Fighter, or the cohort Fighter exists only to be a flanking buddy for the rogue, players don't have to work together on problems so much.

Unfortunately, a DM running 4 Cohorts is a nightmare. It can be done, but the slowdown is either terrible or the DM makes the cohorts do things that the players can't stand. I recall the paladin in our group livid when a good-guy NPC walked into his mounted charge line.

I guess my suggestion would be to take each of the cohort sheets and then at the start of combats, shuffle them and hand them to players at random. This way there's a chance that things won't always fall down to "As with the last 10 fights, my cohort delays to my turn, we then move in unison to flank the NPC wizard before engaging him in a grapple."


As for letting them control all of their followers, I'd allow it so long as everyone was clear that they'd probably die rapidly in any combat the PCs faced that wasn't pathetically easy. I would disallow players from statting them out, simply because if you don't, you could very possibly find the realism of the game squashed as a company of 120 men trained in Repeating Crossbows (how many threats are produced by that many bolts per round? ... enough to matter) lines up behind the party each combat... and that's just from one leadership feat, nevermind four.

 

[Pax]

I would disallow players from statting them out, simply because if you don't, you could very possibly find the realism of the game squashed as a company of 120 men trained in Repeating Crossbows (how many threats are produced by that many bolts per round? ... enough to matter) lines up behind the party each combat... and that's just from one leadership feat, nevermind four.

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.

 

[The Souljourner]

Here's a more useful answer than "blow them up" -- it depends on what kind of game you're playing. If it's typical dungeon crawling, having 4 cohorts along with the party is going to radically change the way your game runs. There's a reason why leadership isn't in the PHB. It's a very broad feat, and should be carefully adjudicated. I think one person having a cohort as a part of a smaller party, filling in for a hole in the party (they needed a rogue, or a cleric, for example), is fine, but more than that, and it just gets ridiculous.

If they want to use leadership to get a bunch of followers who tend to things outside of dungeons and it fits with the story, I say go for it. But most people don't take the feat for that purpose.

We had a follower in one of our recent games. The player with that character was by far the richest member of the party, because he was getting treasure for two and using it however he wanted. I think the ideas about not letting the player control the cohort's actions completely is a great one. They have to realize that while the cohort will in general do what the player says, he's not going to jump off cliffs, or give up his hard earned treasure just because the guy he looks up to says so.

-The Souljourner

 

[Allanon]

Imagine winning 1 million bucks and piratecat comes round to you're house and asks for 750.000... Would you still look up to him then?

 

[S'mon]

Here's a more useful answer than "blow them up" -- it depends on what kind of game you're playing. If it's typical dungeon crawling, having 4 cohorts along with the party is going to radically change the way your game runs. There's a reason why leadership isn't in the PHB. It's a very broad feat, and should be carefully adjudicated. I think one person having a cohort as a part of a smaller party, filling in for a hole in the party (they needed a rogue, or a cleric, for example), is fine, but more than that, and it just gets ridiculous.

If they want to use leadership to get a bunch of followers who tend to things outside of dungeons and it fits with the story, I say go for it. But most people don't take the feat for that purpose.

I allow players to run their PC's cohorts & cohorts normally get a half share of treasure, same as XP. Cohorts are great for small parties, I have 7 players though so if everyone had a cohort it'd be hell to DM - as it is, 3 PCs have Leadership & cohorts, 2 of whom are currently with the group. The majority of cohorts IMC are NPCs encountered and recruited by the PCs, although I have also let PCs create NPC cohorts where I felt it was appropriate, but again this can cause problems since the cohort will inevitably be tailored to provide maximum benefit - Cleric cohorts are particularly popular, also Bards, while most encountered/recruited NPCs are Fighter types, of less immediate benefit.