Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 1187445" data-attributes="member: 259">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</blockquote>

Verification