PHB Leadership - Obsolete?

[RaspK_FOG]

I agree with the BRCS team's consent on following the rule-books as closely as possible, but I think there's a bit of obsolete data here...

Leadership was built based on settings that had no such skill as Lead. For that reason alone, its only prerequisite is that your character has at least 6 character levels. Now, while I agree with that (right over the 1/4th threshold), the feat seems to good: even the wild mongrel wtih no ranks in Lead can choose Leadership as a feat!

I say that the prerequisites for Leadership change to: "Character Level 6, Lead 9 ranks."

[tcharazazel]

Heh, sounds logical to me. Would be easier for those regents who have lead as one of their needed skills, the Law and Temple regents. So, the Guild regents (generally rogues) will have plenty of skills points to get lead that high by 6th level if they want it that soon.

[irdeggman]

I have to disagree. I think adding things as prereqs to the Leadership feat is jsut mucking up a system that is already in place for no real good reason except it "sounds better".

The leadership feat gets you the following:

Cohorts
Lieutenants (super cohorts)
Followers

It really has nothing to do with leading troops or very large groups of people, which the Lead skill attempts to capture.

[harvs2]

I seem to think that this change extremely penalizes wizards. It means that a wizards (or any class that does not have Leadership as a class skill), would not be able to get cohorts, LT's or henchmen until 18th level. I would highly disagree with anyone who says that a wizard does have the possiblilty to do this prior to 18th level.

[tcharazazel]

Lieutenants? eh? where did that come from?

What!?!? Leadership feat has nothing to do with leading troops!? Or the Large Groups of Followers...

I think that what Rasp was trying to point out is that Leadership allows people to attract Military Units as Cohorts. As leading a Military Unit well relies upon the Lead Skill, it is a logical connection.

A possible compromise would be to require 9 ranks in Lead to use that BR specific ability of Leadership, to have a military unit as a cohort.


And actually it would be level 15 for characters who only get Lead as a cross class skill, not 18th. And how many Source regents are going to care about leading larger groups of followers... or military units... most don't.

[Athos69]

Then what of the Great Leader feat?

[irdeggman]

Check out Chap 8 for Lts.

The logic of the Leadership feat is as follows:

In 2nd ed PCs could have followers and henchmen. These were replaced via cohorts in 3/3.5. In 2nd ed regents got bodyguards which were based on the PHB (fighters, clerics and rogues) and that Lt counted towaards the max number of henchmen a PC could have.

Here is a write up I did a long time ago on it (prior to 3.5):

Reasons why Leadership feat should be available to regents at 1st level:

Using fighter class as base

In 2nd ed:
PHB – at 9th level a fighter automatically attracts men-at-arms if he has a castle or stronghold. In addition they also attracts an elite body guard. There was a random table for generating a leader, troops/followers and elite units.
BRRB – These bodyguards are gained at 1st level if the character is a regent, otherwise they are gained as per the PHB. Random tables are similar, not exact, to those in the PHB.

PHB had the limit for number of henchmen a character could have based upon his Charisma. Level limit of henchmen had to be less than character level.
BRRB had the number of Lieutenants and henchmen (total) limited by the number of henchmen based upon Charisma. Level limit of henchmen had to be less than character level, modified by bloodline strength.

In 3rd ed
DMG has the Leadership feat available at 6th level. This feat includes attracting cohorts (with level based upon leadership score). Cohorts, after initial level do not have a level limit based upon character’s level – but they only gain half exp points. Leadership feat also includes gaining followers, which is roughly the same as the old men-at-arms/body guards. There doesn’t seem to be a limit to the number of cohorts a character can attract.

It only makes sense to modify the DMG rules for regents. IMO there are several ways this can be done.

First option is to simply allow a regent access to Leadership feat at the time he becomes a regent (instead of waiting until 6th level to be eligible), i.e., he can purchase the feat when he is capable of gaining a new feat. We can use the rules for followers to determine the number of bodyguards that a regent can acquire. Note that the DMG specifies that these followers are warriors, experts or commoners. If a regent chooses not to purchase the feat then he doesn’t gain bodyguards or Lieutenants.

Second option is to give the regent the Leadership feat for free. If we specify that this only applies to those with major scion template (or better) and that other regents have to purchase the feat this gives another little benefit to having to take an ECL.

We could not modify the feat at all. Regents would have to wait until 6th level, then take the feat in order to gain bodyguards or Lieutenants.

We could say that they could still attract Lieutenants without the feat. IMO this doesn’t seem very wise since by all appearances cohorts are the same as Lieutenants.


Proposal:

Leadership Feat (detailed in DMG): The structure of the BRCS requires some modification of this feat. Due to the unique make up of the BRCS it is recommended that the allowance for “special cohorts” not be used since most of the creatures referred to do not exist, or at the very least are exceptionally rare in Cerilia.

Prerequisite: character level equal to 6th level or 1st level regent character
Modifications (for regents only):

The make up of the followers is detailed in the For the DM Chapter under bodyguards. Followers are always of the same race as regent. Half elves may choose whether their followers are human (of their parent’s race), elf or other half elves – can’t mix humans with elves and half elves, but can mix elves and half elves.

Cohorts are Lieutenants and the terms are interchangeable.

Maximum number of Lieutenants (cohorts) a regent may have at any time is one plus his charisma modifier.

Use the regent’s effective character level as his level for determining his leadership score.

What this does is:
Allows an existing 3rd ed mechanic to govern how to acquire bodyguards and Lieutenants with very little change.

Removes the restriction that characters that only gained RP from source holdings couldn’t acquire bodyguards.

Incorporates the character’s effective character level due to a scion template into his overall level for determining number and level of followers/body guards and Lieutenants. This is similar to the rules from the BRRB for Lieutenant level and regent level with bloodline strength modifier.

If a player chooses to not follow the road to rulership by taking this feat then he is a less effective ruler, one he doesn’t gain any Lieutenants and has no bodyguards. It becomes the player’s choice as to which way he develops his character. By not having any Lieutenants a regent’s ability to respond to random events is limited and he wouldn’t gain an extra action per domain turn.

Non regents still follow the normal rules for Leadership.

Includes a recommendation to not use the option for special cohorts, many of the listed ones aren’t really appropriate for the campaign.


This is a "strict" reading of the evolution of these issues.

[tcharazazel]

Athos,
Good point. Great Leader already requires 9 ranks in Lead and it adds +2 to the Leadership score. Heheh, I just see the logic in gettin the military cohorts from the Leadership feat requireing 9 ranks of lead. Though, 9 ranks wouldnt really be needed to get the feat itself.


irdeggman,
Ah Chapter 8, why didn't you say they were Variants? Heheh, i think thats a Key word right there... Variant. They are alternatives in the first place.

If you have a decent size realm you will need a lot more Lieutenants than what your Cha mod would be. A spymaster, a marshal/general, a chamberlain, an admiral (unless land locked), a warden, huntsman, justicar, engineer, maybe an assassin and then some emissaries and spys...

heheh, they can really add up.

I would see the first variant listed there as a possiblity really, allowing regents to take Leadership at 1st level. Of all the variants its the only one that would make the most sense.

One other thing, If we are trying to Follow 3.5 in the rest of the revised BRCS, why should we follow 3.0 with regard to the Leadership feat? Doesnt make sense...


DMG has the Leadership feat available at 6th level. This feat includes attracting cohorts (with level based upon leadership score). Cohorts, after initial level do not have a level limit based upon character’s level – but they only gain half exp points. Leadership feat also includes gaining followers, which is roughly the same as the old men-at-arms/body guards. There doesn’t seem to be a limit to the number of cohorts a character can attract.



The Exp gained has changed a bit now in 3.5 and uses a formula:

Cohorts earn XP as follows:
The cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP.

Divide the cohort’s level by the level of the PC with whom he or she is associated (the character with the Leadership feat who attracted the cohort).

Multiply this result by the total XP awarded to the PC and add that number of experience points to the cohort’s total.

If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than the associated PC’s character level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed attain the next level.


What? no limit to the number of Cohorts in the DMG!? heh, you kiddin? it only allows you to get 1 cohort... it refers to it as "a cohort" in the description, not cohorts.


Note that the DMG specifies that these followers are warriors, experts or commoners. If a regent chooses not to purchase the feat then he doesn’t gain bodyguards or Lieutenants.


There is a variant in the Epic book that is rather cool also, Followers of adept or aristocrat are count as followers +2 levels higher, ie level 6 follower = level 4 adept. If they follower has a PC class, it counts as +3 level higher, ie Level 6 Follower = 3rd level Fighter. If the follower has a prestiege class it counts as +5 levels higher, ie level 11 Follower = 5th level rogue/ 1st level assassin, this last one obviously only applies to Epic Leadership.

Well as the regent can still hire bodyguards and Lieutenants and without the Leadership feat he just wont get them at 1/2 cost or free, its not really a big deal.



The make up of the followers is detailed in the For the DM Chapter under bodyguards. Followers are always of the same race as regent. Half elves may choose whether their followers are human (of their parent’s race), elf or other half elves – can’t mix humans with elves and half elves, but can mix elves and half elves.

Cohorts are Lieutenants and the terms are interchangeable.

Maximum number of Lieutenants (cohorts) a regent may have at any time is one plus his charisma modifier.

Use the regent’s effective character level as his level for determining his leadership score.

It seems that you have left out the military unit as a cohort, which is the real benefit and not getting a few Lieutenants without having to pay them.

Also, havent we already gotten well past this idea that scion levels are actual character levels under the Sanctioned Ch 2? And Leadership uses the character levels, so this is not an issue now.


Ok, all that aside now, I would support what you just proposed as keeping it as variants in Ch 8 of the BRCS.

[Athos69]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@Jun 7 2004, 12:42 PM
Athos,
Good point. Great Leader already requires 9 ranks in Lead and it adds +2 to the Leadership score. Heheh, I just see the logic in gettin the military cohorts from the Leadership feat requireing 9 ranks of lead. Though, 9 ranks wouldnt really be needed to get the feat itself.
Well then... If Great Leader shows a large scale, and Leadership is more of a personal scale, then why not tie the ability to have a Military Cohort to the Great Leader Feat, and leave Leadership to its published DMG 3.5 writeup?

[tcharazazel]

That would be an easy solution :) and as it would require the Leadership feat to be any use to someone its not much of a change in the power of the feat. heh

[Athos69]

Simple and elegant solutions, my specialty!

*grin*

[irdeggman]

T'Char Azazel,

Sometimes you don't read everything that is written.


Here is a write up I did a long time ago on it (prior to 3.5):

I didn't update it because that is what I wrote when we were putting together the BRCS.

And yes there is no limit to the number of cohorts a character can have in the DMG (3.0 or 3.5) the table lists the 'starting level' for a cohort not the maximum number he can have. (pg 104 3.5 DMG ". . .nor limits to the number of cohorts who can be employed by characters."

The "Free Lt" variant was to allow a regent to be able to gain Lt without having to use the Leadership feat. The number given for free (i.e., without the feat) was the Cha mod (if positive) plus 1. This allowed a regent to have some Lt at early levels.

One thing that wasn't specifically laid out in the BRCS-playtest was that Lts were supposed to follow the rules for cohorts.

Gaining bodyguards and Lts was supposed to require the Leadership feat unless one of the variants was used. This was because of the direct correllary between bodyguards and 2nd ed men-at-arms (from the PHB) and Lts and henchmen (see the BRRB). In 2nd ed BR Lts counted towards the maximum number of henchmen a character could have.

In 3/3.5 nothing comes for free. If a player wants his character to have bodyguards or Lts he needs to make a choice in order to get them. In this case it is acquiring the Leadership feat instead of using the feat for some other purpose.

When one looks at where the body guards and Lts came from in 2nd ed it becomes obvious that they are the followers and cohorts in 3/3.5. The rules in 2nd ed had a character be able to gain both men-at-arms and henchmen for free (that is it was part of the class progression for men-at-arms and hencmen were tied to the Cha score).

[tcharazazel]

No i saw it, my point was I just didnt see why you would want to use that now as an example, instead of updating it to current standards.


And yes there is no limit to the number of cohorts a character can have in the DMG (3.0 or 3.5) the table lists the 'starting level' for a cohort not the maximum number he can have. (pg 104 3.5 DMG ". . .nor limits to the number of cohorts who can be employed by characters."


Heh, my bad... well then, it seems like rule I'm used to helps to keep the power of that feat in check, can only have 1 cohort or military unit(s) (whose level counts as base GB cost) up to the current level of my Leadership score, otherwise, why wouldn't everyone have huge armies of cohorts...

Think about it... wow... that's not over powering or anything. Why would anyone pay full price now, instead of 1/2 price for their units? You could easily double your army and pay the same maintinance... heh, yeah that could use a little rewriting then in the BRCS.

That is a super powerful feat otherwise, especially in the domain level of play.



In 3/3.5 nothing comes for free. If a player wants his character to have bodyguards or Lts he needs to make a choice in order to get them. In this case it is acquiring the Leadership feat instead of using the feat for some other purpose.


Ok, so let me get this right then. You are saying that a regent Cannont Hire any bodyguards or Lieutenants UNLESS they have the Leadership feat?

Somehow... That doenst make sense. If the person can hire armies without having the Leadership feat, why can't they hire bodyguards and Lieutenants?

Now, if they have the Leadership feat, these bodyguards and Lieutenants will be free or hired at 1/2 cost. However, the cost should be clairified as being the real difference here and not that people can't be hired as bodyguards or Lieutenants.


If I were to change the feat:
I'd say that a character with the Leadership feat can only have 1 cohort = max level of cohort allowed by the characters leadership score or a number of cohorts whose total levels = max level of cohort allowed by the characters leadership score. Example: a character with a leadership score of 25 can have one level 17 cohort or one level 10 cohort and one level 7 cohort.

The same logic applies to the number of military units a character with the feat can have as cohorts. Example: a character with a leadership score of 25 can have one 17 GB unit or one 10 GB unit and one 7 GB unit.

Finally, you must choose between a military unit(s) as a cohort or a character, you cannot have both.

Thus, there are no bonus Lieutenants, or bodyguards, and they are resonably limited, so as not to cause most DMs a headache as they watch their players just surrond themselves with millions of cohorts. The feat would not determine the number of bodyguard/military units or Lieutenants that a regent can have, as a regent could have 200 4GB units, however, the regent may only count 4 units as cohorts. The regent could also have 10 Lieutenants, however, if he is counting he military units as cohorts then he cannot count any of his Lieutenants as cohorts to get a reduction in their cost.

Example: The normal maintenance garrisoned would be 200 GB and if they were all the regents cohorts 100 GB. That is a huge difference. And if they all went active it would normally be 400 GB, and if they were all cohorts 200 GB... an even greater difference. Definately needing to be fixxed there. That is way to overpowered for a domain level of play.

[irdeggman]

No i saw it, my point was I just didnt see why you would want to use that now as an example, instead of updating it to current standards.

Then why did you go into a semi- point by point analysis of what was different between 3.5 and 3.0?




Ok, so let me get this right then. You are saying that a regent Cannont Hire any bodyguards or Lieutenants UNLESS they have the Leadership feat?

Somehow... That doenst make sense. If the person can hire armies without having the Leadership feat, why can't they hire bodyguards and Lieutenants?

You must be getting confused again. We are talking about bodyguards (which are part of the court costs) and Lts (those who are dedicated to their leige and can be placed in charge of his domain during his absence). Hirelings can be be hired as always, but they do not have the dedication that bodyguards and Lts have. Bodygurads and Lts were something that was specific in their usage in 2nd ed BR, while based on the mechanics of 2nd ed PHB they had very different connotations.



Heh, my bad... well then, it seems like rule I'm used to helps to keep the power of that feat in check, can only have 1 cohort or military unit(s) (whose level counts as base GB cost) up to the current level of my Leadership score, otherwise, why wouldn't everyone have huge armies of cohorts...

Think about it... wow... that's not over powering or anything. Why would anyone pay full price now, instead of 1/2 price for their units? You could easily double your army and pay the same maintinance... heh, yeah that could use a little rewriting then in the BRCS.

Again the Revised chap 1 specified for military cohorts that the total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score. What this means is pretty much the same thing you are talking about, that the total value of all units counted as military cohorts is not to exceed the cohort level (i.e., starting level) appropriate to your leadership score. Since this was an addition to the Leadership feat in the PHB/DMG this is an except to the standard rule for cohorts.

Note that in order to do this the character must have a BAB of +6 (minimum of 6th level Good BAB character) and have the Leadership feat (minimum of 6th level character).



Now, if they have the Leadership feat, these bodyguards and Lieutenants will be free or hired at 1/2 cost. However, the cost should be clairified as being the real difference here and not that people can't be hired as bodyguards or Lieutenants

The only time that 1/2 cost is mentioned is in relation to military cohorts, otherwise bodyguards are included in the cost of domain maintenance (just like in 2nd ed BR).

3.5 DMG pgs 104-105 talks about hirelings, followers and cohorts. Basically hirelings work for pay, followers work for free (except that the one they follow pays to equip and feed them), cohorts recieve share of party treasure (e.g., they get paid, 3.0 had better words on this though saying something along the lines of they are usually paid)

Basically the core rules don't need to be changed, they only need to be understood, and the only modification is the part about miltary cohorts (which was something that people seemed to really like and want which is why it is in the BRCS in the first place).

[Osprey]

Irdeggman,

I've read carefully over the DMG's and SRD's descriptions of the Leadership feats and cohorts. In every single instance, it says "a cohort" or "the cohort," and never mentions them in the plural. The connotations seem obvious to me - in 3.5, a character is allowed a single cohort as a henchman. 3.0 is more ambiguous on the subject, in one instance saying "a character may begin attracts cohorts [plural]" and later saying "if the character is responsible for the death of the cohort [singular] or followers..." I'm guessing you're carrying over the plural from 3.0, and perhaps an assumption that this would remain unchanged for 3.5 and is good for a BR game anyways.

I have always assumed a singular henchman as a cohort - multiple cohorts seem so obviously unbalanced power-wise for a single feat, wouldn't you say?

Now, for Birthright:

I'm all for allowing any invested regent the ability to gain Leadership at any level.

I still like the idea of stronger bloodlines allowing higher Lt./cohort levels:
- a Minor bloodline produces no add. benefit (max chort level = character's level-2)
- a Major bloodline allows a Lt. up to the character's level-1.
- a Great bloodline allows a Lt. up to the character's level.

I have no poblem with regents having multiple Lieutenants (and personally I don't think there should be a limit on the number), however, here is how I've integrated leadership into this:

-A regent character with the Leadership feat gains a free Lieutenant up to the normal maximum cohort level. No special recruiting or extra payment is necessary, this character will find the regent and offer his or her services. This Lieutenant's level rises as the character's level does (this is assuming that the Lt. spends time adventuring when not engaged at court), to the normal maximum level.
-Any additional Lieutenants must be found, recruited, and paid seasonal wages appropriate to their level. In my own game, I've set typical wages at 1 GB per season for level 1-10 cohorts, 2 GB for level 11-15, and 3 GB for level 16-20, though these are only typical and can vary depending on the negotiations with the prospective lieutenant. Lieutenants, however they are gained, may still not exceed the normal maximum cohort level.
-If the character has a Military Cohort, he may not have a free lieutenant as well. Only one or the other is allowed. Military Cohorts' total muster value in GB is not limited by the PC's character level, only by the normal maximum cohort level as determined by their Leadership score (to a maximum of 17 GB without Epic Leadership).

A suggestion regarding Lead: Why not allow a +1 bonus to a character's Leadership score per 5 ranks in Lead? This would mean competent leaders would gain more bodyguards and possibly stronger military cohorts than an unskilled one (especially if allowing full military cohort values as listed above).

Osprey

[Osprey]

Ooops...my bad. I see now on p. 104 they specifically state "no limit to the number of cohorts a characer can have." Doh! Oh well.

I still think it's crap, but whatever. Isn't it nice when you're a 10th level character, and your six 8th level cohorts don't detract anything from your XP awards, yet mysteriously keep getting XP from each fight? Yeah, really smart mechanics, TSR...good job.

[irdeggman]

I've read carefully over the DMG's and SRD's descriptions of the Leadership feats and cohorts. In every single instance, it says "a cohort" or "the cohort," and never mentions them in the plural. The connotations seem obvious to me - in 3.5, a character is allowed a single cohort as a henchman. 3.0 is more ambiguous on the subject, in one instance saying "a character may begin attracts cohorts [plural]" and later saying "if the character is responsible for the death of the cohort [singular] or followers..." I'm guessing you're carrying over the plural from 3.0, and perhaps an assumption that this would remain unchanged for 3.5 and is good for a BR game anyways.

I have always assumed a singular henchman as a cohort - multiple cohorts seem so obviously unbalanced power-wise for a single feat, wouldn't you say?


Try the following: 3.5 DMG pg 104 under Cohorts “There are no limitations on the class, race, or gender of a character’s cohorts, nor limits to the number of cohorts who can be employed by a character.”



Now, for Birthright:

I'm all for allowing any invested regent the ability to gain Leadership at any level.

I still like the idea of stronger bloodlines allowing higher Lt./cohort levels:
- a Minor bloodline produces no add. benefit (max chort level = character's level-2)
- a Major bloodline allows a Lt. up to the character's level-1.
- a Great bloodline allows a Lt. up to the character's level.


This was the 2nd ed standard which was based on the PHB rules for henchmen. The rules for henchmen have been replaced via the rules for cohorts which is wht I have been trying to point out.

The rules for leadership are probably the most underused and misunderstood rules in 3.5 (mostly because they have limited application in an adventuring game when one has to spend one of his precious few feats in order togain the benefits. In BR it was decided to emphasize these existing rules because they are are in the core rules.

There were increases to the a PCs ledership score based on many things, scion class levels, great heritage template. The DMG gives a set of modifier for adjusting the leadership score for a character based on situations. IMO it is very easy for a DM to add some extra ones like +1 for a great victory, -1 (or -2) for a major loss, etc.



I have no poblem with regents having multiple Lieutenants (and personally I don't think there should be a limit on the number), however, here is how I've integrated leadership into this:

-A regent character with the Leadership feat gains a free Lieutenant up to the normal maximum cohort level. No special recruiting or extra payment is necessary, this character will find the regent and offer his or her services. This Lieutenant's level rises as the character's level does (this is assuming that the Lt. spends time adventuring when not engaged at court), to the normal maximum level.
-Any additional Lieutenants must be found, recruited, and paid seasonal wages appropriate to their level. In my own game, I've set typical wages at 1 GB per season for level 1-10 cohorts, 2 GB for level 11-15, and 3 GB for level 16-20, though these are only typical and can vary depending on the negotiations with the prospective lieutenant. Lieutenants, however they are gained, may still not exceed the normal maximum cohort level.
-If the character has a Military Cohort, he may not have a free lieutenant as well. Only one or the other is allowed. Military Cohorts' total muster value in GB is not limited by the PC's character level, only by the normal maximum cohort level as determined by their Leadership score (to a maximum of 17 GB without Epic Leadership).

Paying cohorts was more clearly specified in the 3.0 DMG, it is really ony implied in the 3.5 DMG. They do get a share of treasure. IMO it relatively simple to use the pay scale for experts to account for their pay. This is refering to paying Lts, which should be handled the same as cohorts.


A suggestion regarding Lead: Why not allow a +1 bonus to a character's Leadership score per 5 ranks in Lead? This would mean competent leaders would gain more bodyguards and possibly stronger military cohorts than an unskilled one (especially if allowing full military cohort values as listed above).

Why? Leadership score is equal to the character's level + Cha modifier +(modifers from scion class levels in BR) + other modifiers. There is plenty already there to keep from having to resort to an extra bonus for a skill.

What appears to be happening is that people have misread (or misinterpreted) the rules for leadership in the 3.5 PHB/DMG and are thus trying to resolve how they have been house ruling them.

As I said earlier the rules for Leadership and cohorts, etc. are probably the most misunderstood because they are among the least frequently used ones. They are however capable of being very useful in a domain-level setting like BR which is why I have been emphasizing using them as written (with some minor changes - like militarty cohorts or the variants in Chap 8). Again I don't see a real reason to change the rules only to gain a better understanding of them.

[tcharazazel]

Then why did you go into a semi- point by point analysis of what was different between 3.5 and 3.0?


Helping you bring it up to speed.



You must be getting confused again. We are talking about bodyguards (which are part of the court costs) and Lts (those who are dedicated to their leige and can be placed in charge of his domain during his absence). Hirelings can be be hired as always, but they do not have the dedication that bodyguards and Lts have. Bodygurads and Lts were something that was specific in their usage in 2nd ed BR, while based on the mechanics of 2nd ed PHB they had very different connotations.


Oh, I must have missed that in the Court description saying that bodyguards are a part of the court. I always viewed the court a beurocratic system. Any guards that you wanted had to be hired, and were not a part of the court. Or is that in the Outside the Lines Chapter 8 again?

Well, Lieutenants are made by the Ceremony of Lieutenancy, I thought, and not from being a cohort. While, it is logical that a cohort would be a more trusted Lieutenant, it doesnt not mean that every Lieutenant must be a cohort.



Again the Revised chap 1 specified for military cohorts that the total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score. What this means is pretty much the same thing you are talking about, that the total value of all units counted as military cohorts is not to exceed the cohort level (i.e., starting level) appropriate to your leadership score. Since this was an addition to the Leadership feat in the PHB/DMG this is an except to the standard rule for cohorts.


Now then, it seems like there is a major inconsistancy here... If you can hire an infinite number of cohorts why can you only hire up to 17GB worth of military units as cohorts? Heheh, to put a limit to it then really shows that we recognize the problems that come with it and we just put on a bandaid over a broken limb.

Actually, if you think about it... why should there be any GB limit on the military unit cohorts... they can be made up of cohorts whose character level could be up to 17th! Thats a hell of a lot better than your average military unit full of 1st-3rd level warriors. Really, that just doesnt make sense then... Imagine an army consisting only of 17th level characters!!! They would wipe the floor with any regular, veteran ect unit. And by the current rules to no limit to cohorts you could easily have such an army...

Seems like the only way to logically justify the minimum on the military cohort is to revise limit on cohorts provided by the Leadership feat. Maybe state that you can only have a number of cohorts whose total EL does not exceed your current allowed cohort level.


heh, basically what Osprey said then

Osprey

A suggestion regarding Lead: Why not allow a +1 bonus to a character's Leadership score per 5 ranks in Lead? This would mean competent leaders would gain more bodyguards and possibly stronger military cohorts than an unskilled one (especially if allowing full military cohort values as listed above).


That's a cool idea.

[tcharazazel]

What appears to be happening is that people have misread (or misinterpreted) the rules for leadership in the 3.5 PHB/DMG and are thus trying to resolve how they have been house ruling them.


Heh, its not trying to justify the house rules, we just couldnt believe that they would be that foolish to allow such a broken feat! It is broken really, as having hordes of cohorts who do not take away from your exp rewards is definately broken. Heh, you could have 100s of them, just 2 levels below you, and to take on a few hundred ogres and you would get all the experience from the encounter! Don't tell me that's not broken.


One final thing, you have yet to address the fact that the rules you mentioned above concerning the uses of the Leadership feat from Ch 8, are all Variants. So, do you plan on making those rules no longer variants? Or Will they continue to be Variants... and if so why did you bother to really bring them up in the first place?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@Jun 8 2004, 01:51 PM

One final thing, you have yet to address the fact that the rules you mentioned above concerning the uses of the Leadership feat from Ch 8, are all Variants. So, do you plan on making those rules no longer variants? Or Will they continue to be Variants... and if so why did you bother to really bring them up in the first place?
Why didn't I specifically address your comments on this - the spcifics aren't really germain to the discussion but the text descriptions fill in a lot of apparently 'missing' information concerning how Lts and bodyguards are supposed to work.

I did say that Chap 8 is missing words specifically stating that Lts are handled following the rules for cohorts. This will be added in the rev.


As far as paying bodyguards (or retainers as specified in Chap 8) - it does say they are handled like followers in the DMG. Followers are not paid, the only costs associated with them are room and board and equipment costs. There is no reason to really change this. I said they are part of the court costs (actually overall domain maintenace, but it probably should be specified that in order to have them a regent must maintain a court and the followers (re: retainers) maintenance costs are part of the court costs.

[irdeggman]

Well, Lieutenants are made by the Ceremony of Lieutenancy, I thought, and not from being a cohort. While, it is logical that a cohort would be a more trusted Lieutenant, it doesnt not mean that every Lieutenant must be a cohort.

And that section in Chap 5 refers back to Chap 8 for more details on Lts. And, again, I have said that Chap 8 was missing the statement that Lts follow the rules for cohorts.

Using the 2nd ed system Lts were 'uber' henchmen and counted against the maximum number of henchmen that a character could have. I find it really almost impossible to believe that someone could so utterly miss the direct corellary here from 2nd ed to 3rd ed (and now 3.5).




QUOTE
Again the Revised chap 1 specified for military cohorts that the total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score. What this means is pretty much the same thing you are talking about, that the total value of all units counted as military cohorts is not to exceed the cohort level (i.e., starting level) appropriate to your leadership score. Since this was an addition to the Leadership feat in the PHB/DMG this is an except to the standard rule for cohorts.




Now then, it seems like there is a major inconsistancy here... If you can hire an infinite number of cohorts why can you only hire up to 17GB worth of military units as cohorts? Heheh, to put a limit to it then really shows that we recognize the problems that come with it and we just put on a bandaid over a broken limb.

Actually, if you think about it... why should there be any GB limit on the military unit cohorts... they can be made up of cohorts whose character level could be up to 17th! Thats a hell of a lot better than your average military unit full of 1st-3rd level warriors. Really, that just doesnt make sense then... Imagine an army consisting only of 17th level characters!!! They would wipe the floor with any regular, veteran ect unit. And by the current rules to no limit to cohorts you could easily have such an army...

I don't know, since military cohorts are very much a step up from the standard cohorts a difference in application is very appropriate.


Seems like the only way to logically justify the minimum on the military cohort is to revise limit on cohorts provided by the Leadership feat. Maybe state that you can only have a number of cohorts whose total EL does not exceed your current allowed cohort level.

Or we could just drop the whole military cohort issue. It wasn't in 2nd ed. Yes I can just delete that benefit then things will be much more clearly balanced I think. {insert sarcasm}




QUOTE
A suggestion regarding Lead: Why not allow a +1 bonus to a character's Leadership score per 5 ranks in Lead? This would mean competent leaders would gain more bodyguards and possibly stronger military cohorts than an unskilled one (especially if allowing full military cohort values as listed above).


That's a cool idea.

Except that it defies how things work. Feats give bonuses to skills and not vice versa. So technically the Leadership feat should instead give a bonus to the Lead skill.

[irdeggman]

Things to keep in mind concerning cohorts and the fact that they don't take away from the exp of the party.

They do add to the EL of the party, so the party will have greater challenges.

More cohorts means less opportunities for other players to participate. This could cause gaming issues due to resentment because of reduced involvment. This is something that is pointed out in the DMG.

The exact makeup and availability of cohorts is always controlled by the DM, so if the DM thinks its balanced to have a character have many many cohorts then that is what the DM wants to deal with. If the DM thinks it is not well balanced then he controls the availability of the cohorts.

[Athos69]

I'm all for removing Military Cohorts from the basic Leadership feat, and instead pinning them to the Great Leader feat.

This comes with a caveat though. The Great Leader feat should have as prerequisites: Lead 9+, Warcraft 9+ and Leadership.

[destowe]

That would work decently Athos.

The earliest a single classed could get this would be an 8th level noble. If this is taken as the noble bonus feat. If it is also in the bonus fighter feats (possible reasoning) they could also get it at 8th level.

If someone multiclasses something for maximum effect like 6th (something else) and 1st noble (or fighter) they could get it at 7th level.

The character has definately been around long enough to have fame spread far and wide.

[Osprey]

I think requiring 2 feats for military cohorts is a bit extreme. Great Leader already has quite a few benefits if Lead becomes the primary skill for law holdings, and the +2 bonus to Leadership isn't insignificant either.

I really liked the variant of Leadership for military cohorts as it was written in the BRCS, and honestly don't see it as problematic in and of itself, if it is written to specifically address the limit on GB worth of mustering.

Osprey

[Osprey]

Things to keep in mind concerning cohorts and the fact that they don't take away from the exp of the party.

They do add to the EL of the party, so the party will have greater challenges.


Which is exactly the problem. Higher CR monsters/challenges means more XP for PC's with cohorts than for those without.

Again: a 10th level PC with 6x 8th level cohorts could handle much higher CR's of monsters, thus earning the PC much more XP than he would get otherwise.

You speak of "precious feat slots." Well, tell me, is Improved Crit or Weapon Focus or +2 to a couple of skills going to empower a PC in any way close to how this feat would? I don't think so.


More cohorts means less opportunities for other players to participate. This could cause gaming issues due to resentment because of reduced involvment. This is something that is pointed out in the DMG.

The exact makeup and availability of cohorts is always controlled by the DM, so if the DM thinks its balanced to have a character have many many cohorts then that is what the DM wants to deal with. If the DM thinks it is not well balanced then he controls the availability of the cohorts.

These are very poor arguments for justifying a game mechanic. Mechanics are in place so that a DM doesn't have to make up his or her own limitations or house rules. DM judgement should be invoked when the mechanics don't cover an issue, which should be the odd loopholes. Likewise, good roleplaying should flow naturally from a good set of mechanics, rather than forcing a DM and players to set their own limitations on the rules because the rules don't set any inherent limitations. Invoking DM judgement in a core rules set really means "we can't write a good mechanic for this, so we're leaving it up to you." It's not as if DM's aren't equally free to ignore written limitations on core rules anyways. But if it's written as a rule, at least there is a guideline present.

When 3.5 worked so hard to stomp down on what was considered too powerful or unbalanced, such as powering down a large number of spells, why would they leave such an obviously unbalanced feat wide open to power abuse?

I stand by my claim: this feat having no limit on cohorts is BAD, BAD, BAD. One cohort plus followers seems reasonable for the power of a single feat. Unlimited numbers skew it horrendously.

[geeman]

When it gets right down to it the Leadership feat is a highly unbalancing

game mechanic that is really only justified by the style of the campaign as

a whole and the DM`s rulings on how that feat is handled. In simplistic

terms, is the campaign to be one in which players take on the role of two or

more characters, or is it to be the more traditional 1:1?



I`ve always favored the former--and it is one of the things that attracts me

to the BR setting in the first place. If one examines the domain structure,

the followers and nature of rulership in BR the whole domain level of play

is really an extended version of what was in previous editions of the game a

rather haphazard system of rulership, leadership and followers.



So what`s the point? Well, I think the problem here is that the fundamental

attempt to incorporate the 3e/3.5 Leadership feat (and extensive feats based

upon it) into the BR setting is essentially redundant on several levels.

It`s redundant at the character level because there are skills to replace

the concept. What`s the point in having the Leadership Score of the

Leadership feat if one has a Lead skill? Why not just use the Lead skill in

place of it and have the feat interact with the skill system in a way that

might be more analogous to how Track interacts with Survival in 3.5?



At the large scale combat level there already is a system of

soldier/hirelings established, so there`s not really a big need to give

regents access to that sort of thing through feats.



When it comes to the domain level, lieutenants have their own system of

rulership and participation in the domain level, and there are means of

acquiring them (a whole domain action) that have nothing to do with the

Leadership feat. Plus, for all intents and purposes all civilians in a

province are effectively the followers of a regent who controls that

province or even just holdings in it. Their relationship to the regent is

probably better defined by the specific type and number of holdings that the

regent controls in that province than it is by the Leadership feat.



In abstract terms, the Leadership feat is a way of performing for PCs at the

adventure level of play the kinds of things that already exist in the BR

domain level. The feat description in the DMG, of course, has some prose

that emphasize the DM`s (already existing) rule that he can disallow it if

he wishes, but I`d suggest that in BR it should be dropped not because it

imbalances the game or isn`t the style of play that a DM might want to run,

but because it is already established in most ways by existing, domain level

mechanics.



Instead, a better way to handle the situation is to simply define how many

cohorts/followers a regent gets through the domain level of play, how they

are acquired, and most importantly what their participation will be should

the PC engage in adventure level play.



Gary

[irdeggman]

I'm working on a variant for Chap 8 regarding exp awards for cohorts and Lts. Making it a variant is a way to incorporate the concerns for having numerous Lts/cohorts along with no exp drain happening, and yet not forcing a change to the existing rules. A happy compromise.


My comment about dropping military cohorts was supposed to be sarcastic to reply to tcharazazel's comments on balance and attempt to drag the two together for an extreme point. I knew it was a popular addition but wanted to get to the point if it caused problems then it could alwyas be dropped and eliminate them. Restricting the number of militarty cohorts available makes sense since they are much more powerful than the standard cohort (we are talking about the equivalent of 200 men) and it was an addition to the core rules for BR.

[tcharazazel]

I'd say drop the military cohort fromthe leadership feat, because its not logical to only allow a certain number of cohorts when the feat itself does not put any limit on the number of cohorts. The example was extreem to show how extreemly unbalancing it can be and how you can raise an unlimited suppy of cohorts to make your armies.

However, I also like Athos idea of incorperating the military cohort into the Great Leader feat. This way we would not have to put limits on the Leadership feat, which we would obviously do if we limit the number of military cohorts.