Ok, everyone knows that if a character wants an army to do his adventure for him, he can. Leadership can get you Cohort that is almost as good as you, Planar Binding can get you a mass of demons to teleport your treasure away from monsters you'd have to fight, and animate dead can get a zombie chimera that flies you around and fights your battles. This doesn't even count things that can charmed, created, commanded, or some other killer app.
The solution:
Institute leadership limits across all spells and effects that grants you units, and all effects use a combined Leadership Limit. Make it a simple "the more you have, the less powerful they can be."
For example:
Your level - 2 = 1 unit
Your level - 3 = 2 units
Your level - 4 = 4 units
Your level - 5 = 8 units
Your level - 6 = 16 units
Your level - 7 = 32 units
Your level - 8 = 64 units
Etc.
This will effect everything that gives you units. So a 9th level Necromancer with Leadership can control 64 human Zombies with two HD(CR1), or he could have a 7th level apprentice. If he casts a charm spell, any creature gained would come out of this limit. Or he could also have 30 2nd level Rogue Graverobbers and 34 Zombies, or any combo of the two. He could even have 10 2nd level Necromancer apprentices, 20 2nd level Rogue Graverobbers, and 20 human Zombies with two HD(CR1), and he can keep 14 slots open for regular guys that he might need to charm on a long term basis.
Spells that grant units will normally will be changed to a temporary effect. For example, animate dead as a default, will animate dead for one round per level (like a summoning), and only if you want to make them your permanent cohorts will they count against you Leadership limits (limited by the effect, of course, so a charm still checks saves every day). Charms, clerical Commanding, planar ally or planar bindng will all have durations in rounds or minutes, and will be longer if the person casting the spell has Leadership.
The numbers would have to be fiddled with. 2 monsters of CR - 3 is an encounter of Level - 1, which means that in most cases they are more powerful together than the single monster of level - 2 would be.
-Frank
I never liked the fact that I couldn't have two cohorts of (level - 4), instead of one at (lvl-2), if that's what I wanted. Or a small pack of blink dogs, or a corps of elite rangers. Or whatever. So I'm all in favor of this proposal... with an endorsement of Frank's call to check on the EL/CR numbers.
Who here has sat there for an hour waiting for him to run through all his characaters' actions, rolling die, counting damage, looking up an effect for some spell, etc.?
Obviously, this option would favor smaller groups. Or large-scope campaigns, in which players could use their armies "behind the scenes" instead of taking them into "dungeons." If you play in a large dungeon-crawl group, this option would obviously not be for you... but that doesn't mean it should be denied to everyone.
Who here has ever been sitting at the table with another player who has an army in combat? Who here has sat there for an hour waiting for him to run through all his characaters' actions, rolling die, counting damage, looking up an effect for some spell, etc.? Who here has dozed off waiting for that player to resolve all his actions? Who here has gone to pick up pizza only to find that player -still- working on resolving his characters actions?
Giving players an army is a -bad- idea. I'd go so far as to say giving them animal friendship, leadership used in combat, and planar binding needs to be watched closely and, possibly, made a bit harder (for example, if the game uses action points, requiring the spending of an action point in order to cast planar binding).
The SRD lets you have an army, if you want. Thats not even up for debate.
I'm actually advocating a rules change that puts limits on how big that army can get. With this approach, any army powerful enough that you'd consider bringing into an army is small and manageable. Big armies can't live long in an battle because they will be weak, so people won't bring them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, I'm not debating whether the SRD allows you to have armies. I'm pointing out that its a bad thing that it does - unless those armies are kept strictly "behind the scenes".
So, from my perspective, why do we need rules regarding armies that aren't behind the scenes when we shouldn't have armies that aren't behind the scenes?
Because henchmen and retainers and personal armies have been a part of DnD since the beginning, and changing it now would fundamentally not be DnD anymore.
Your solution of "make the game less interesting by cutting that part of the game out" would work, but it makes it less enjoyable.
Expect successful game designers to pick the "fun" solution of finding a way to give people what they want over the "easy" solution of not dealing with an basic issue.
I started off in this thread by asking, "Who here has ever been sitting at the table with another player who has an army in combat? Who here has sat there for an hour waiting for him to run through all his characaters' actions, rolling die, counting damage, looking up an effect for some spell, etc.? Who here has dozed off waiting for that player to resolve all his actions? Who here has gone to pick up pizza only to find that player -still- working on resolving his characters actions?"
You are now saying that I'm arguing for making the game less interesting.
I find this to be a curious difference of opinion. You believe that a game system which leads to players falling asleep while they wait in an incredibly slow line to make an action is a game system which is fundamentally more interesting/more enjoyable than one that does not?
No, I'd advocated a system where IF you have units under your control that CAN make a contribution to combat, they will be FEW IN NUMBER and CORRECT THE VERY PROBLEM YOU"VE STATED.
In this way, everyone gets what they want. (My apologies for the CAPS).
Try to bring a bunch of low-level units into a mid-level combat and not only will they be unable to affect the monsters, but they'll die in huge numbers when the first AoE hits, so they won't affect your adventure that much. Logic will demand that if you want to keep them you either leave them at home or use them for some off-stage task. On the flipside, if you are only allowed to bring a few near-your-level units to a combat, the other players won't get bored.
Thats what we call in the biz "a solution." Some people are made happy because they get their armies and other people are made happy because they also get their stage-time.
If you have a potentially very interesting, fun option that -- when used poorly -- causes some people to fall asleep at the table... well, I wouldn't advocate removing that item, nor saying, "it's sometimes incovenient to me, so remove all rules for it." Rather, I'd look for ways in which to alleviate its boredom-inducing effects at your table. This might involve tweaking the rules (as K proposes), or in your case, LilithsThrall, simply houseruling that armies are not allowed (which sounds like a very good option for your group, from the way you describe your experience). But removing that item from everyone is really not the optimal solution -- what you do then is potentially alienate all the people who like it. I think the game is robust enough to survive people ignoring options they don't agree with.
LilithsThrall, I'm not trying to snipe at you or anything; I apologize if I come across as snarky or something. Strictly speaking, I'm trying to address a school of thought, not anyone in particular as a person. I've noticed a major trend in these threads: any time someone personally dislikes an option -- skill points, action points, armies, a Fly skill, spells for paladins, or what have you -- the typical response (though not by any means universal -- there are many noteable exceptions) is to call for an expunging of that item from all rules, and the total removal of any option related to it. Rather than allow that it can stay as an option (even if it's not the default play style), many people seem more comfortable advocating a total ban. I'm not sure why this is. In my mind, the best (most successful) game would provide large numbers of options that each group could use or not use as fits their style of play; this would ensure the largest number of people "buying into" the said rule set.
I think it's worth noting that, if you open the DMG and take a look at it, Leadership is already a strictly optional feat. GMs are free to allow or ban it as they see fit, and may hold off on a decision until a player explains what they want to do with it.
So while I think that the feat could use some streamlining and perhaps a bit of expansion to include undead, I think keeping it an option to be allowed or disallowed by individual GMs is definitely the way to go.
As far as pets and undead minions ought to be reasonably straightforward, as when all's said and done, they don't have many tactical options in combat other than who to attack. I say ought to be, though I'm sure it's not even remotely always the case. Anything clever enough to think for itself is covered by leadership, with the exception of familiars and animal companions (both of which you're limited to one of).
Summoned creatures are the biggies, I'd say. I take the position that it's the player's responsibility to have the stats for any creature they want to summon on hand, along with a list of standard round by round tactics. Naturally, the summoned creature is quite capable of altering tactics, but compiling those standard tactics in the first place ought to familiarise the player with the creature's options, thus helping reduce the amount of time spent in decisionmaking.
Charm person, I think, is a strictly temporary measure when it comes to gaining a combat ally. After all, if the person was normally willing to risk their life on your behalf, you wouldn't need to charm them in the first place. Doing it day-in, day-out practically necessitates having leadership just to represent your silvered tongue at work. Nor, I think, does charm person mix easily with cohorts gained through conventional leadership. It leads to too many questions in the cohort's mind as to whether you're influencing him in such a manner.
Rambling done, I think that leadership has the potential to add quite a bit to a game, given rigorously applied common sense and the understanding that the GM is free to veto it, even after the fact if it's slowing things down too much.
|
Who here has ever been sitting at the table with another player who has an army in combat?
In 1st and 2nd Edition, many classes between 7th and 10th level gained a horde of followers. So I'm guessing, a lot of them.
Many adventures have the use of mass combats, including the old Bloodstone modules, but also almost any adventure that taps the *classic* 'mobilize the villagers to defend their village from the raiders' trope, with the players in the role of the Seven Samurai.
In 3.0, any Druid with Animal Friendship ended up with a posse.
In 3.5, any Cleric able to Rebuke Undead (any Evil, many Neutral) or with an Alternate Class Feature that allows one to Command other creatures (Dragons from Dragon Magic or Vermin from Drow of the Underdark) or one of the following Domains; Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Plant, Cold, Winter, Scalykind, Spiders, Warforged, Ooze or Slime can have a horde of minions. Pelor forfend he have more than one of these, as, for instance, a Neutral Cleric of Obad-Hai with the Earth and Fire Domains could, if he has chosen to Rebuke Undead.
There's that pesky Leadership feat.
Dread Necromancers.
Anyone able to cast Animate Dead.
Anyone able to cast one of the Book of Exalted Deed or Book of Vile Darkness spells that calls up a horde of Lantern Archons or Dretch for a year's service.
At a certain point, it becomes obvious that the game is replete with a plethora of ways to amass an army (and even if the players don't take advantage of any of these options, there are still many extremely fun adventures that end up with them in nominal command of a large group of NPCs). I can simply choose not to play the game as written, and house rule *many* things out of play, if I am unable to handle this sort of thing, or I can adapt, use some sort of mass combat rules, or just use some average rolls for the hoi-polloi.
We've never had anyone run out for pizza and come back to find that someone's turn isn't over. What does happen, every session, is that someone takes their turn, and then gets up to use the bathroom, grab a soda or answer a text from their girlfriend, only to stall the rest of us, because we finished our turns long before they were done.
I ran a mass combat just two weeks ago, and it didn't slow things down at all. The players took their actions, and I reached out and knocked over some figures on each side, having figured out before hand what would happen with average rolls (I suck at math, I used a calculator and it took a few minutes, since even I can figure out that 1d8+1 means that that figure is doing about 5 hp / round, divided by it's chance to hit the AC of the target).
I think we should strive to develop a spirit of trust on these boards - trusting each other - and that means speaking our minds when we have a disagreement on an issue. A lot of guys get self defensive when others disagree with them. I think its counter productive.
Having said that, I'd like to point out that there is a key characteristic which makes this issue different from many others which you seem to think are the same. That is, time - real clock time - is a limited resource. You can't squeeze more than 60 seconds into a minute no matter how hard you try.
I agree, on all points.
For our (2-3 person) group, armies can on occasion grant more fun that the time drain they represent, so they can be a useful option. For a larger group, or one in which players blather and waste time and insist on rolling for every individual foot soldier -- well, they suck. The time:fun ratio is too high. Part of the problem is the lack of anything resembling a workable mass combat system. If someone could come up with a d20 system for army-scale battles that was quick, streamlined, and fun, that would solve most of the problems right there.
Unfortunately, I'm not the man for that task. And believe me, I've tried. Set's solution is about the best one I've seen, to be honest.
As a Paladin who takes leadership, I like this option, remove the feat and just have it as a background score, kinda like your rep score.
Leadership Score is your level + your Cha modifier (possible misc bonus to come)
With this ability to flex your score to aquire the followers you desire I see how I wont balance, If im in the dungeon I want 1 or 2 strong cohorts, if I am going to a political or need some logistics for the rest of the party then I can bring on low level hirelings. The great part is just make players pay the people that follow them. Its great roleplay when the cohort goes on strike for more hazard pay. If you use leadership properly its not at all broken. The fact is that people will abuse anything you put out there so find better people to play with. Also if eveyone has a leadership score than small gaming groups can simply fill the holes in the party with cohorts (ie a GM and 2 players can play since 4 decent level characters will be there.)
I like the system I say pound it out and lets see how it plays. (monday I will tell you how it goes for may saturday game)
Not saying this is for everyone but it's something we did.
We had a guy with his horde of lantern archons open the bag and let them all out to attack this one monster. So DM looked up the entry for the archons, checked the monster, and used statistics to determine how many of them were likely to hit. Damage was determined using a pile of dice and the monster took them out with an AoE. Whole horde took less than the amount of time to get up, cross the room, grab slice of pizza from the box, return to chair, sit down, and eat pizza. I'll call it 1-2 minutes. One to two minutes.
Not bad for a horde.
Considering all those in our group have taken high school mathematics at some point in our lives, the statistics method worked. There is no reason it couldn't be used on, say, a horde of 1st or 2nd level guys with similar effects. So if you do have a player who wants to roll to hit for his two regiments of 1st level warriors, slap him. Please.
With a math textbook.
Well the goal is that a GM can tell when things are getting out of hand. So if a player tries to bring is company of zombies everywhere they start becoming more trouble for the player.
Example: Eating people the player likes or needs. Wondering off while the Necromancer sleeps or prepares spells. The smell becomes nausiating to other party members. Ticks off the wrong creature and gets wiped out.
any of these events along with a simple "please dont bring them everywhere" will usually signal to a player not to bring them and will use them for background tasks. Off-stage characters are great ways to get many task done that are usually just annoying and slowing to players so minions can be a way to speed along a game.
Zombie Bill take this note to the city guard we will be there after we find the ord of (insert here). *places a cloak over the zombie and a note pinned to his chest*
7th level apprentice maybe, but 64 zombies... no way. It's not even that it's that powerful, it's just that it bogs the game down to unplayable levels. I don't want to be waiting for some player to finish moving his 45th zombie. That just sucks.
See, that's what irks me. It's not the idea of him having 64 zombies that's the problem, it's the fact that some idiot at your table insists on rolling for all 64 of them individually. In that case, the PLAYER is the problem, as are the DM and the other players for putting up with it. A streamlined mass combat system would cure that. Telling the player he has to stat up and use them as 2 mobs (DMG2) would help. But making a rule that no one is ever allowed to have a horde of zombies takes away cool possibilities for the DM as well as the player. I am absolutely, 100% against officially banning things in the RAW just because certain groups can't handle them. If your player can't deal with it expeditiously, ban the zombies for him. But for the love of Gygax don't insist on banning it for the entire gaming community so that we're forced to houserule against the RAW for something that was originally allowed.
7th level apprentice maybe, but 64 zombies... no way. It's not even that it's that powerful, it's just that it bogs the game down to unplayable levels. I don't want to be waiting for some player to finish moving his 45th zombie. That just sucks.See, that's what irks me. It's not the idea of him having 64 zombies that's the problem, it's the fact that some idiot at your table insists on rolling for all 64 of them individually. In that case, the PLAYER is the problem, as are the DM and the other players for putting up with it. A streamlined mass combat system would cure that. Telling the player he has to stat up and use them as 2 mobs (DMG2) would help. But making a rule that no one is ever allowed to have a horde of zombies takes away cool possibilities for the DM as well as the player. I am absolutely, 100% against officially banning things in the RAW just because certain groups can't handle them. If your player can't deal with it expeditiously, ban the zombies for him. But for the love of Gygax don't insist on banning it for the entire gaming community so that we're forced to houserule against the RAW for something that was originally allowed.
I'm of the same opinion.
I was thinking that giving a unit a command should take a standard action and then the DM actually decides what that unit does.
In this way, if you are using many small units you'd want to group the into "Squads" that use Mob rules or something so that you could command more of them at a time. The rules were written up in Dungeon, but its like a swarm.
--------------
On the issue of "time to move units", I've run zombie attack adventures using zombies from the Zombies! game and it doesn't take any time to set them up, or even move them (try it out, if you doubt me). Rolling attacks would take a lot of time, so I think abstracting that is the way to go.
True but you have the CR and EL system to allow GMs to have some gage of what is being fielded. I know at times the system seems shaky but im sure with all the abilities being ironed out that it will become more messurable, and managable.
Sorry thought thats what you meant, heros of battle has some rules that can help with mass combat. At the very least get us started on a mass combat system.
Well this still comes down to players vs mechanics. You are viewing this a managing players where the original purpose of the thread really is how to manage all the different controlling mechanics. Of course players are going to get out of hand and abuse any system, and your plan seems like a good one. But at the end of the day you cant use mechanics to fix players and you cant nerf players to fix mechanics.
I say there is a good system here for universial leadership, some sort of renown system that shows a characters progression as a hero and even a legend. Of course not everyone is aiming at that and they dont have to use their scores for anything. This just gives everyone a chance to have a follower or cohort and keep it balanced.
The issue I see is that a mechanics problem can be fixed. Where as a player issue must be address on a personal level and cannot be considered in the design of a particular system. If you do then any system is doomed to failure and will never work, because a player will find a way or situation where they can exploit or irriate. I just happens. But what you have done is find a solution that fixes the player issue but what of the mechanics issue?
If only mobs from the DMG II were OGL . . .
If only mobs from the DMG II were OGL . . .
Then call it a "squad" and use different rules.
One problem I have with Leadership is that it's humanocentric.
That is to say, a BBEG Minotaur who has united the warring clans of his people and risen to greatness, with a respectable Leadership score of somewhere 12-15ish (I'm making things up here) ends up with only one or two actual minotaurs and a whole bunch of 1st-5th-level followers who (RAW) are 1st-5th level... what? Human commoners? Immature minotaurs (even if I went the Savage Species route).
I guess I could just houserule it, or just "give" him minions, but it sort of takes away from the game. If your PC has to spend a feat to become a renowned leader, why is it that the minotaur chief can get away with it just by virtue of existing with a couple of class levels?
Any opinions?
Oh, I get that it would be fairly easy to make up an alternate "mob." It would have just been much easier to contemplate these options if it were already an option, rather than having to dance around the wording to make it "safe."
Alternatively, if a character has multiple minions, you could always divide them up amongst the other players. Less to keep track of for the individual player, more to do for the others.
Alternatively, if a character has multiple minions, you could always divide them up amongst the other players. Less to keep track of for the individual player, more to do for the others.
This is a decent plan. But becomes difficult if more than one player has minions (the original concept of Dungeons and Dragons held that everyone of about 9th level should have minions, and this is still quite reflected in the 3rd edition rules).
In any case, something which I think should happen is the accumulation of "power units" in addition to simply advancing all of your guys when you level. While going up a level and having all your Orcish Warriors go from level 1 (CR 1/2) to level 2 (CR 1) is all fine, completing a campaign and having them all move from level 2 to level 4 is pretty weird. Even more so is minions like golems and skeletons, whose levels never increase.
I have no problem with a 15th level Wizard having an iron golem, it's really no big deal. But advancing that is non-trivial. What should probably happen is to have our robot making wizard get some clockwork horrors or Dreadguard at level 16, and then trade that in for a second iron golem at level 17.
But I don't think people should literally be breaking down their dreadguard into iron golems just because they went up a level. So what probably should happen is that characters should have a command rating that allows them to drag a certain amount of ass kicking with them, and then they can leave their other troops, minions, and creations at home with the stronghold. This allows players to make their own "dungeons" at high level which is good because a lot of people want to do that.
-Frank
But if PCs and NPCs are now (being 3.x rather than 2e or 4e) made using the same rules as each other, why is it realistic for an NPC to just "get" minions?
Make no mistake, I do it, too- everyone does. What annoys me is that if I do it as a PC, or if one of my players does it, I find myself asking "so why don't your followers go... over there and guard your stronghold or something, they're slowing the game down?", but if I want an NPC to have minions, all I have to do is write down "Snorter, Minotaur Bbn5, and his minions, 3-18 minotaurs, MM pxx".
If I wouldn't let a PC do it, why should an NPC get to cheat?
Or, more importantly, think about this example:
Lord Valtrigar, the Court Mage, is the BBEG for the campaign. He uses his high Charisma, lots of skill ranks, and hordes of loyal minions to undermine the King. Now there's an NPC whose description firmly says he has "loyal minions".
Would my PCs feel cheated if I gave them no xp for the minions, being as they exist only as a function of the BBEG's feat (like summoned, but not called, monsters)? Does it seem reasonable that the minions should exist solely outside of the BBEG's feat, and thus allow him to use more of his feats on marshalling his own personal power against the PCs when he has clearly dedicated effort to raising a army of minions?
Do PCs feel cheated if their efforts to win the loyalty of their fellows results in them taking a feat which slows down the game and makes them feel less powerful than if they had just spent it on Improved Critical? Would it unbalance the game if I just allowed the PCs to get minions, too, without ever having to spend a feat on it?
Yeah, maybe, but maybe not.. the point is... why use different mechanics (or lack of mechanics) for the same situation. Did Genghis Khan have Leadership? Definitely. Should Snorter the Minotaur King have it? Yeah, probably. Will it do a minotaur (or a troll, or a Balor) any good? Heck no.
|
...if I want an NPC to have minions, all I have to do is write down "Snorter, Minotaur Bbn5, and his minions, 3-18 minotaurs, MM pxx".
If I wouldn't let a PC do it, why should an NPC get to cheat?
Why use different mechanics (or lack of mechanics) for the same situation. Did Genghis Khan have Leadership? Definitely. Should Snorter the Minotaur King have it? Yeah, probably. Will it do a minotaur (or a troll, or a Balor) any good? Heck no.
FAME AT LAST!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
NPCs aren't cheating, they're just playing according to DM rules instead of PC rules. The DM is one person, and controls a bunch of creatures to challenge an entire party of PCs. The minotaur himself isn't the DM's character. They're all just NPCs and they're all just encounters.
NPCs don't need leadership or anything to have followers.
But that's what I'm saying.
PCs and NPCs are created using the same rules. Would I feel like a player was cheating if he said in his character description that he had a "group of loyal followers" who aided him in his quest, and then just expected to take those as a 'free bonus'? Yep. Would I feel like he was cheating if he wasted (let's be serious, that's what it is) a feat slot on Leadership? Not so much (but I'd still not want to deal directly with his followers in every battle).
So why do NPCs get the premium treatment?
Please understand everyone, I don't hate Leadership. I like the idea of it, I just hate the execution.
What I think has been a good idea is a 'Leadership score' for everyone, without using a feat on it, that relies on your CR (or something) in order to explain who/what your followers are.
So Snorter is a 5th-level Barbarian? OK, he gets a 3rd-level minotaur cohort, two 2nd-level minotaur followers, and 20 minotaurs following him.
Something so I can see the justification for appropriateness. No matter what, a 16-year-old 5th-level fighter should not be the BBEG of a game, with hordes of minions, because it wouldn't make sense. A minotaur version of Genghis, definitely, but I'd like to see some more (feats, classes, prestige classes, mechanics) for dealing with the question: How much is an appropriate level of resources for this character (whether P or NP)?