Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lily Inverse" data-source="post: 269032" data-attributes="member: 4594">Unfortunately, a simple look at the economics of keeping large numbers of people fed, clothed, equipped, and rested is the limiting factor here.  Yes, Leadership is quite powerful, however, your 16 Cha Paladin, as early 13th level, is going to have 28 people following him around.  Not many inns will accept this kind of entourage all at once, and fewer still will simply be keeping enough meat around to provide for them.  And 25 of them are not going to accept being forced to sleep out in the stables while your seargeants, cohort, companions, and yourself sleep in a bed.  When equipment breaks, you need to have some way of providing for it to be fixed, and equipment breaks a LOT when you're marching off in the wilderness for months on end.  Furthermore, the first time you forget to bring enough food on one of these little excursions, the problem multiplies.  For an evil leader, these might not be a big deal, as you can just find a town and set your small horde on them.  But Paladins must deal with these problems through legitimate channels.  The easiest would probably be to dismiss your private army and make do without.  Also, imagine how much WORSE these problems could be when the number gets up to a full hundred followers!  You might not be tied to a single castle or temple, but you're going to find yourself having to stick fairly close to supply lanes, and thus your traveling area will be severely limited.  Planehopping will almost certainly be right out unless you can make other provisions for your followers while you go off and do things that would get them killed.  So yes, Leadership is VERY limiting to the campaign style.  I know of no GM in this area who allows it based on these very issues, not out of a sense of game balance.Hardly true!  I often play with a low attribute or two.  But it's rare for me to play against type, yet that is just what you propose Paladins do, by not ALLOWING them a type!I'll conceed the point.  32 is usually what the GM I play with the most uses (but he tends to use 36 or 38 for his NPCs)  But what I meant was to compare this against the 25 for a "standard campaign."  It's here, the average, where your scores break down.  And I was under the impression that 4d6- 1 roll tended to produce characters around 25 points.And you missed mine completely.  Despite being in that range above the scale, there is nothing "slightly" above average about a 13 Int among the common crowd.  These people are usually considered extremely intelligent by those around them.  Nobody would ever mistake them for a genius, but most would agree that they are something VERY special.  If you want "slightly" above average an 11 would be far more appropriate.I'm a little short on time here to make a comment about your putting together combat-based Paladin....but later I'll see how this stacks up to a fighter-Cleric at similiar levels.  However, it still looks to me like you may be in for a rather unpleasant shock.</blockquote>

Verification