Talk:Feat: Leadership
How much leeway is there on the "caused the death of other followers" penalty? Does it count if the followers are led into a battle in which one or more of them get killed, or does the character's involvement have to be more direct? Granted, -1 isn't a whole lot, and the follower penalty isn't cumulative, but it IS permanent, by the rules, and considering that followers can be basically one-shot by a single attack from enemies at the PCs' levels, it's pretty much guaranteed to happen if the followers are ever taken into any combat (consider the poor 1st-level Dwarves in the fight against King Mab and co. That NPC was only level 4, so imagine the same thing when the PC's are all level 8-10). Currently, the only solution is to never take the followers into combat, but then what's the point? So they can sit around sweeping your fortress? They could conceivably provide aid bonuses to some skills, but rules for that would have to be worked out, and anyway, that would only matter when you're near home base. -Slitherrr
- FINAL EXAM WEEK! Geeeze!
- I always assumed that meant "Death of Cohort." And I consider it cumulative for that purpose. If you're running a martial organization, losing followers here and there shouldn't be a penalty unless you're Ulysses S Grant or something. -gm
- There are two Leadership scores, one for cohort and one for followers, and deaths of one or the other apply only to their respective scores. By the rules, it is cumulative for the cohort. I'm protesting it as written, because permanently punishing the character for something that can, as you say, even happen to PCs, is shitty. The SRD rules assume resurrection is as common as it normally is--this world has no such safeguard, so my suggestion is to at least put some thought into allowing the PC some way to quest to get rid of the penalty for cohort death, rather than permanently weakening one of the PC's feat choices (remember, each weaker cohort becomes even more likely to die in combat) for what could very easily, in DnD, be a freak accident. -Slitherrr
- Another way that Kib and Germ are different: Germain would just change his name, move away, and start over again with his crimes washed away in a sea of deceit and obfuscation. --Msallen
- There are two Leadership scores, one for cohort and one for followers, and deaths of one or the other apply only to their respective scores. By the rules, it is cumulative for the cohort. I'm protesting it as written, because permanently punishing the character for something that can, as you say, even happen to PCs, is shitty. The SRD rules assume resurrection is as common as it normally is--this world has no such safeguard, so my suggestion is to at least put some thought into allowing the PC some way to quest to get rid of the penalty for cohort death, rather than permanently weakening one of the PC's feat choices (remember, each weaker cohort becomes even more likely to die in combat) for what could very easily, in DnD, be a freak accident. -Slitherrr
- I always assumed that meant "Death of Cohort." And I consider it cumulative for that purpose. If you're running a martial organization, losing followers here and there shouldn't be a penalty unless you're Ulysses S Grant or something. -gm
Also, re: the cumulative cohort penalty for death--no other class ability gets permanently limited in such a way. Considering that PC level - 2 is low enough that the cohort could conceivably die in a single unlucky hit, this is pretty unreasonable to the petomancer (Wizards and Sorcs get this problem too, with the ridiculous 1-year wait time to get back a familiar that has an HP total that is half of what is already a shittily low number). If that cohort happens to be the target of, say, a Hunter strike that manages to crit for max damage, the PC with Leadership is suddenly sitting on a penalty that will reduce the power of future cohorts, making them even more susceptible to the same thing, and he will have that penalty for his entire career. In vanilla, this is rectified by having Resurrection available (which, I guess I'm assuming would eliminate that penalty, since the cohort would no longer be dead, but I guess that's not explicitly spelled out, so who knows). I would propose, instead, that cohorts be at PC Level-2, always, end of story, and that we leave the penalties for letting a cohort die be decided on a case-by-case basis by the GM, and be more along the lines of making the PC do some sort of atonement-equivalent quest to get his new cohort, rather than permanently penalizing the PC for the sort of thing that happens on a daily basis in a DnD career. -Slitherrr
- There are *PCs* who could be one-shotted by a max damage hunter crit, so I'm not seeing the fragility of the cohort as a major issue. I've said before, and I'll say again, based on my experiences in LG, the cohort is one of the most abuse-able rules in the game. -gm
- That PCs can be one-shotted really just helps my case. Death is very possible and easy, and penalizing the petomancer for the rest of his career for it is a shitty consequence of carrying SRD rules into a resurrection-free world, one that should be thought about so that, if it happens, we've at least got a framework for making it less shitty (but not shit-free). -Slitherrr
- I basically do the Cohort = LVL-2 thing, though, unless - like I said - one of them is an item crafter, like Egg, in which case I just have matt keep track of TOTAL experience expenditures, and if it ever gets to the point that the total would be a drain, Egg will be LVL-3 instead of LVL-2. I'm not being very clear because it's not an issue yet, but I have some Bar Napkin Engineering to bring to bear if Egg ever starts Ye Olde Item Shoppe or something. -gm
- The XP requirement can be gotten around with clever trickery in any case--not that you couldn't shut it down, but cohorts are not the only exploit you're going to find yourself pushing against if this is your goal. If you want to keep Egg from turning into a magic item factory, then up the time requirements for making a magical item, and ignore the XP requirements altogether. Our entire campaigns have taken a total of two months. If a +1 sword takes even two weeks to make, Egg can hardly churn those things out--by the time Germain could equip an army, the Big Bad will have already been beaten/taken over the world. As for potions of cure light, or whatever, we're all of high enough level that those can be almost taken for granted anyway. -Slitherrr
- IMO, the feat as written is garbage and the only sensible rule test is "DM option". At best, they are a guideline, and really this feat should be entirely a conversation between player and DM with only passing interested paid to the rules as written. That said, I don't think the point of followers is to go with you into battle, except when are fighting some other army of 1-3rd level dudes. Otherwise, they represent your business, which may be sweeping your fort if you aren't all that busy. --Msallen
- Yeah, a lot of this. There is a reason leadership is in the DMG and not the PHB. -gm
- I definitely agree that the feat as written needs a lot of work. To your second point, if you're a talky, business-y guy, then followers-as-business-managers makes sense. If you're a fighting-type dude, though, then they're your army, because what use is a field commander going to have for a bunch of paper-pushers and librarians? Granted, taking them into battle with the beholder is probably out of scope, but they will probably at least be following around in a camp and mopping up trash mobs, which still leaves them plenty vulnerable if the players happen to be caught in a bad moment--in any case, the gratuitous death of followers is a pretty firm staple of Fantasy genre, so to permanently penalize the PC for that seems off. I just figure we should hash out a little framework for Leadership before it becomes deeply ingrained into the campaign, and the actual mechanics matter a bit more for Kib than they do for Germain, thanks to the soldierly focus.-Slitherrr
- Oh, yea yea, its definitely different between Germain and Kib (although I see your underhanded jab at my geeky followers and would advise you to keep those meatheads away from Wydmoor and our jails ;). I'm just saying that all those level 1s are taking on the opponent's level 1s while the PCs take on the real threats. I agree that every movie or book in the fantasy genre would have them dying by the fistful every time a catapult fires, and D&D should to. --Msallen
- Exactly, which is why a permanent decrease in Leadership ability if any of them die is a shitty rule (especially because it's one-time for followers, so once it happens once, there isn't ANY repercussion at all, which defeats the purpose). I think a crossover with atonement is the key way to go, here. Also, no disrespect to your paper-pushers--they're a force to be reckoned with in their environment, and I wouldn't expect my meatheads to do any better against them in a court of law than I expect your flower-eaters to do against my guys on a battlefield. -Slitherrr
- Oh, yea yea, its definitely different between Germain and Kib (although I see your underhanded jab at my geeky followers and would advise you to keep those meatheads away from Wydmoor and our jails ;). I'm just saying that all those level 1s are taking on the opponent's level 1s while the PCs take on the real threats. I agree that every movie or book in the fantasy genre would have them dying by the fistful every time a catapult fires, and D&D should to. --Msallen
- I think I have addressed major issues and concerns with this feat? Ultimately, though, I always though followers were not meant to be in combat with the PCs, at all, ever. It's an adventurer's world, followers just build the trenchworks. -gm
- I've already said that they definitely shouldn't be up there with the party against the beholder. We're not arguing that. But followers have a definite role in fighting the followers that the bad guys will have, and if there's fighting anywhere, followers will die. My argument is that, in the SRD as it stands, if any follower dies for any reason, you've got a -1, forever, meaning you basically can't DO anything with the followers that's worth anything if that rule is followed without taking a permanent hit on the number of followers you can have. As you've said above, though, I'm guessing you're taking latitude with it, so that's probably good enough, as far as followers go (but see my stuff re: cohorts, above). -Slitherrr
Deleted old stuff. History if interested. -Slitherrr 13:47, 13 December 2010 (EST)
