Recently one of my players hit level 9 and took the Leadership Feat. He calculated his own Leadership score and said it was a 15.
Level 9
Charisma mod +2
Great Renown +2
Owns a Keep +2
Total 15.
I told him to hit the brakes, and that his leadership score was 11.
Level 9
Charisma mod +2
Owns a Keep +2
Moves around a lot -1
Caused the death of a party member -1
Total 11.
He normally goes along with my rulings, however he feels i'm throwing him under the bus. We discussed it for some time, and he still feels his number is correct. I decided it would be best if I got a second opinion on things, and so I would like anyone's thoughtful input on this situation.
The three disputed modifiers are:
Great Renown
Moves around
Caused death of a party member
Great Renown
His character he is playing is a ninja (Rogue/Monk/Assassin). The current campaign, if you are familiar with it, is Rise of the Runelords, and the party has reached the halfway mark of Book 3, Hook Mountain Massacre.
He argues that he has Great Renown, through one of three possibilities. (first two are spoiler-ish)
1) Adventuring heroes as part of the module, having even been hailed as saviors of Magnimar in public by Mayor Grobaras.
2) Saviors of Turtleback Ferry, having saved Fort Rannick from Ogres.
3) As a renowned member of his Ninja Clan.
My argument is that Great Renown is just that... fame on a large scale. Someone with Great Renown should be largely recognizable or at the very least heard of in most of the region/nation that they occupy. It's Rock Star status. I feel that he is not widely known. In fact, quite the opposite: He has used a false name and disguise since day one. Every time he arrives in a new city, he adopts a new disguise and name, and stays low key. In Magnimar, he was introduced to the Mayor Grobaras as "The Cleric's Torch-bearer" and no one of importance. Even if he had the chance of cultivating enough fame in Varissia to become greatly renowned, he has hid his identity the whole time. While Turtleback Ferry might be greatly appreciative for his actions, it's a tiny backwoods town. And his own ninja clan? They operate in Cells with no central hub, each cell being given its own orders independently of each other. The nearest cell that he reports to is in Magnimar, and it consists of a dozen or so ninjas and trainees. Keep in mind, that he's supposed to be a NINJA. Someone who operates on not being seen, not on being famous. If he was Ask A Ninja i'd let it slide, but he's not.
Moves Around a Lot
His argument is that he now has a base of operations, his fort. It's a single spot to base out of. He wishes to take mostly ninjas from his clan cell as followers and a Cohort, and move the cells headquarters to his fort.
My argument is that he's moved around a lot himself. Back and forth between three cities in the last month, Turtleback Ferry being quite remote. He's also planning on MOVING his proposed followers once they are recruited in Magnimar. I allowed for removing this modifier entirely after its proven that the fort indeed becomes a central spot, and the followers aren't moved around more.
Caused the Death of another party member
His argument is that this isn't even a real modifier in the book and i'm making this up to penalize him. He also feels that he was not responsible for the death. The party member killed was neither a follower nor a cohort, and he was raised anyways so that the death shouldn't matter. Also, that If I am liberal about making new modifiers to the chart, I should add modifiers because of his heroic actions in Sandpoint/Magnimar/Turtleback Ferry.
My argument is that those modifiers under the leadership feat are a guideline, and that more modifiers not listed could apply. I feel he was responsible, albeit indirectly, in the other party member's death, and that may deter a small portion of people who would look up to follow such a leader. Rather than giving him a -2 modifier (as is the case for cohort death), I decided on a -1 penalty because the fallen party member was not under his leadership. The resurrection of the fallen party member should matter little to this penalty, unless he is willing and capable of raising every Cohort and follower of his who dies. (He has not stated so, nor the current liquid assets to do so, so I assume this is not the case.)
While the party was fighting an evil spellcaster, nearing it's eventual demise, she cast a spell and her body fell down, limp and comatose. A few moments later, the party Diviner suddenly stopped the Druid from "finishing off" the body, and told the Druid that if she harmed the evil spellcaster's body, he would kill himself. The Ninja immediately stealthed, moved into a position where he was not in direct line of sight of the Diviner, and beheaded the spellcaster's body. The Diviner did not see this. The ninja then moved in and stunning fisted the Diviner, and subdued him. It was too late however, as the "possessed" Diviner was now fine, and posession had already jumped to the Barbarian, who was standing next to the beheaded corpse. The Barbarian spit a foul curse at the party for beheading the spellcaster's body, and committed suicide.
While the player of the Ninja feels he is not the cause of the Barbarian's death, I feel this is a case of the big red "Do not Press!" button. He was warned not to do something, immediately did said action, and a players death resulted.
So what are your thoughts on this?
Is he Greatly Renowned?
Does he deserve the "Moves around" penalty?
Did he cause the Players Death? Should that result in a penalty?
Ok first question. WTF? 9 level and he owns a keep? [i wish i had one on those levels :(]
Anyway, the Leadership score of the player is:
Level 9, Cha mod +2, Moves Around a lot -1, Owns a Keep +2 = 12
The death of a party member has nothing to do with followers and cohorts
The great renown is up to the DM. But dude seriously you are 9 level character how is that possible to be well known?. Except you are well known amongst ninjas and assassins in which case ,personally, i would allow you the great renown part but only for cohorts of ninja and assassin class and no other class(meaning Leadership score 14 for ninja and assasin cohort)
Ok first question. WTF? 9 level and he owns a keep? [i wish i had one on those levels :(]
It's a small fort, and it was just recently awarded to them after they cleared it out from the army that invaded and took it. He does not own it fully, but he is part owner (Landed title owner and Steward of the fort), sharing stewardship of the fort with the entire party.
The death of a party member has nothing to do with followers and cohorts
I see where you are coming from, and this is part of the same argument my player is making. However, from my point of view, if a person is causing the deaths of those around him, followers or not, it would have a (small) negative effect on people wanting to be around him.
I agree with wild_captain's evaluation. His score should be 12. The party member's demise should not be counted for the same reason that the ninja has not achieved Great Reknown. People are hardly going to be gossiping in Magnimar about how the ninja inadvertantly caused the death of a party member unless there were more witnesses than just the party.
By your point of view you say that the barbarian is a cohort of the ninja.
But let me give you an example. A member of the party is dominated by a opponent and kills one of his party. Will you blame the dominated for killing his fellow ? Will you penalize him if he had the Leadership feat?
No because he could not do something to prevend this. Also this is something only the party knows and no one else. But if a cohort was there you as the DM could say : the cohort talks to much and once while the cohort was drunk in a tavern he told the story of how the ninja made his dear party fellow barbarian kill himself and instantly the fame of the ninja drops because he is not worthy of trust by party members or something like that.
Hope you get my point dude, good DMing
|
First off, you have to realize that he has TWO leadership scores, and you are mixing the penalties/bonuses for each of them. Based on what you are showing:
Base Leadership = 9 (lvl) + 2 (Cha) = 11
Leadership for Cohorts = 11 (Base) [he has no modifiers that apply]
Leadership for Followers = 11 (Base) + 2 (stronghold) - 1 (moves) = 12
I am sticking to RAW, but I discuss your penalty below.
Based on your description of his character, he would NOT get the great renown because he is not trying to accumulate his renown...in fact, he is trying to do the opposite. The only people that would find him to have great renown would be the people of Turtleback Ferry, and that is a shallow pool to draw followers from. Plus, it's possible they wouldn't be HIS followers, but the followers of the 'heroes who liberated the keep and saved our town'.
You have to use the SAME logic when you are applying his penalty for 'causing the death of a PC'. I have real problems with your application of this, and if I were your player I would also feel like you were just giving me the finger, because:
1) You are creating a penalty.
2) Using the same logic (in reverse) that generates the penalty could also create a bonus at LEAST as high. In other words, his anonymity keeps him from gaining the renown bonus, but it doesn't protect him from people knowing that a member of his group was 'killed'? If we make this logical jump that his fame would allow people to look down their nose at him for this, then wouldn't they also know enough about him to know that he liberated the keep and has saved Turtleback Ferry, plus all that he had done in Magnimar/Sandpoint already? The road goes both ways.
3) The player was raised from the dead, which makes his death little more of an inconvenience than being knocked unconscious, and needing 5k gp. Dying on adventurers is a risk inherent to the adventuring career. If the ninja caused the player's death, then said, "Screw him. Take his treasure and bury the body," then I might be more inclined to agree with you, but only from the standpoint of 'people that go out on adventures with him don't always come back'.
4) The situation with the barbarian's death was not the player's fault. The DM, through the possession of a PC, told them not to do something. The players are not obliged to follow your orders, and then YOU chose to suicide one of the characters. Hitting him with a penalty for that is blatantly unfair to him...he was just finishing what the party had been trying to do in the rounds prior in killing the evil spellcaster.
I would give the character a +1 for his relative renown, rather than a +2 for "great" renown.
Regarding the party member's death--yes you're making it up, but on one hand, you have the right to do so as GM. On the OTHER hand--is the ninja KNOWN for this action (would it negatively impact his repuation), and secondly, would the kind of cohorts/followers a ninja would attract really care that someone else CHOSE to ragequit because they didn't like the ninja's actions?
IF the potential followers knew and were negatively influenced by that, then yes, there should be a penalty, which would just cancel out his renown.
His score is probably 12 or 13.
Also, 13 being between his estimation and your estimation is probably a fair compromise.
In the end, Leadership is something that a player needs to let the GM decide, but the GM should also earn the player's trust not to make an unfair judgment.
|
Ok first question. WTF? 9 level and he owns a keep? [i wish i had one on those levels :(]
It all depends on your campaign's power levels. One group I ran had a keep at level 4. The spent nearly every gold of their meager earnings keeping the thing running too. Of course the highest level person they ever met up with the entire duration of the campaign was level 9.
Base Leadership = 9 (lvl) + 2 (Cha) = 11
Leadership for Cohorts = 11 (Base) [he has no modifiers that apply]
Leadership for Followers = 11 (Base) + 2 (stronghold) - 1 (moves) = 12
+1 to this math.
For exactly the reasons you've noted he should be given the "moves around" penalty and should be denied the "great renown" penalty/bonus. I do though believe that the death of somebody in his company, but not in his employ, care, etc. shouldn't be tacked on as a penalty. If this person's death were directly caused by the player, then we could talk about DM ruled situational modifiers (which are entirely permitted), but in this case I'd say it's a bit too much.
Regarding the party member's death--yes you're making it up, but on one hand, you have the right to do so as GM. On the OTHER hand--is the ninja KNOWN for this action (would it negatively impact his repuation), and secondly, would the kind of cohorts/followers a ninja would attract really care that someone else CHOSE to ragequit because they didn't like the ninja's actions?
It seems that the party was being possessed by a Magic Jar spell from the description. In which case, surreptitiously killing the body and tackling the possessed person was a clever plan, I think, and the evil caster killing another character wasn't the Ninja's fault.
@Ravenot: If it was Magic Jar, I believe the Cleric should have had one round to back up the Ninja and maybe Protection from Evil someone, since returning to the Jar is a Standard action and possessing is a Full-Round action.
|
|
I was sitting here thinking about this a little more and now there's something I want to add.
I firmly agree with the OP that the player in question does not have "Great Renown" for all the reasons indicated (a player who's trying to keep themselves from being known will likely find it difficult to gain renown); however, I am not sure I'm in full agreement over what constitutes great renown.
I think it has a lot to do with the campaign. In some campaigns the world is expansive and characters are expected to become known in the circles of kings and emperors. In these worlds, being known by a paltry town in some backwards-hick nation is hardly going to be known for slaying a couple hillbillies. On the other hand, if you're running a campaign where that is the entirety of the character's "world" is limited in scope, and becoming friends with mayors, governors, and local warlords is the extent of the "higher-up's" one will be dealing with, then a character can easily earn their "great renown" by simply saving a few villages.
For example, I ran Vault of Larin Karr awhile back and gave the players a delapitated keep fairly early in their careers (around level 4). One of the players decided at level 6 to take leadership and start working up his base of followers. It worked out well that his followers slowly became the members of the keep staff and locals who trusted him the most. It never became overpowering that he gained "great renown" within the valley and watched the number of followers he held power over increased. Conversely, we've been playing a 3.5 campaign for over a decade now (transferred from 2) and my bard with leadership is being judged on a much larger scale (the entire world) only because our storyline has to do less with local adventuring, and more with large-scale saving the world plots.
I still don't think he deserves great renown, but I think you need to be thinking in the correct scale when you decide to consider awarding him with the bonus.
My take:
The party death doesn't count for many reasons:
1. Wasn't his fault - the death was directy due to the actions of an enemy. Would the ninja be blamed if an enemy sorcerer fried the barbarian with a fireball? So the enemy got off a spell and killed a PC, that's not any party member's direct fault.
2. Who knows about it? If it's not a famous, or at least well-known death with rumors flying around the countryside, how will it affect the decisions of would-be followers? How could those potential followers feel unsafe with this leader becauese of a death they never heard of?
3. The dead guy got resurrected. Me, if I were going to join a possible leader, I would consider a leader who resurrects his fallen companions to be even more desirable than one who doesn't. So even if anyone has heard of the death, and for some reason blames the PC, the fact that he resurrected the dead guy is a bonus, not a penalty.
4. There is no penalty listed in the feat for causing the death of a party member. Adding this penalty sounds like a DM trying to restrict or punish a player (note, I said player, not PC). Arguably, I would be more inclined to support a DM if the other three points I mentioned above were reversed. In other words, if the PC had deliberately killed a companion, in a public and famous way, and that companion stayed dead, I would consider this to be a good reason for potential cohorts to find some other leader, so I would probably support this penalty in such an extreme situation - but not in the one described in this thread.
Great Renown:
I tend to agree with the DM on this one. Renown in one little corner of the world, a tiny tiny percentage of the world, is not "great renown". Drizzt has great renown. Elminster has great renown. This PC is on the way up, but not there yet.
However, he does have some renown here in this little corner of the world, so if he can find suitable cohorts/followers right here, without having to hope they come "from abroad", then maybe it's justified, given his past heroic actions and public recognition, to give him at least 1 point locally. So for me, he gets partial credit here, but only when recruiting locally. If this player says "a group of hill giants comes down from some distant mountain range and becomes my followers" I could easily say "Sure, but they haven't really heard of you up there so you get +0 'renown' bonus". But if he says "Some local assassins from Magnimar join me to become my disciples" I would say "No problem, they've heard of you, so you get +1 'renown' to recruit them".
Moves Around A Lot:
This is the hardest one to adjudicate.
1. What defines "a lot"? Imagine a teamster who drives wagons for a living. Maybe this teamster lives in Magnimar and never ever leaves the city. But he works 7 days a week, driving wagons all over town. Does he "move around a lot"? Could he start a teamster guild and attract followers? What if he drives his wagon on the road between Magnimar and Sandpoint?
You see my point? "a lot" is very poorly defined. Compared to the Wayfinders, who travel to far off jungles of Mwangi, and to every other corner of the world, this PC has not moved around "a lot". He barely even scratches the surface of "a lot". I would say he "moves around a little bit". Heck, his entire adventuring career has probably been within a 3-day horse ride from his new base of operations. Is that worth a Leadership penalty? I would think not.
2. What defines "moves around"? A guy might move around a little, or a lot, but if he has one home and always comes back to it, is he "moving around"? Compare that to other adventurers who might live in Magnimar this year, and might move (sell their home and relocate) to Abasolom next year, and the year after that might be somewhere else. Those adventurers "move around". But a guy who stays in one area, sleeps in his own bed most nights, and doesn't sell his home and relocate (ever), might not qualify for "moves around" at all.
So does this PC "move around" "a lot"? Compared to a farmer, he defintely does. Compared to a cattle drover, he doesn't move around much at all. Compared to many adventurers, he doesn't move around much at all. But those are just my definitions. Since this "moves around a lot" penalty is not even remotely defined in the book, each DM has to arrive at his own conclusions.
Owns a keep:
Yes and no. He doesn't own it outright. He shares it with others. If I were considering moving in and becoming a cohort or a follower, I would wonder if all those others would also be my "boss" just like the guy I am following. Heck, I'm just a 2nd level blacksmith, am I supposed to refuse the orders of my Leader's barbarian friend, or his wizard friend, etc.? Do I have to obey all of them? What if they decide they don't like my Leader, can they kick him out? Evict him from his keep? Will I get evicted too?
There is a big difference between "owning" and "sharing". I don't think I would give full credit for "sharing a keep". Half-credit at best.
So for me, I see this PC's leadership as 12/13:
Level 9
Charisma mod +2
Owns (shares) a Keep +1
Partial credit for local renown: +0/+1
|
In order to have great reknown, you need to be as famous as The Great Mogen Movenpoun. Saviour of Riddleport, slayer of dragons, lover, fighter, paragon.
If this character, who's now level 13 and famous throughout Varisia and Kyonin, were to take Leadership, I'd hope he'd qualify.
Also, as discussed, you do need to keep the different leadership scores separate for the cohort and followers, as well as dropping the penalty for killing another PC as that was not his fault/not part of the rules.
Regarding the party member's death--yes you're making it up, but on one hand, you have the right to do so as GM. On the OTHER hand--is the ninja KNOWN for this action (would it negatively impact his repuation), and secondly, would the kind of cohorts/followers a ninja would attract really care that someone else CHOSE to ragequit because they didn't like the ninja's actions?
It seems that the party was being possessed by a Magic Jar spell from the description. In which case, surreptitiously killing the body and tackling the possessed person was a clever plan, I think, and the evil caster killing another character wasn't the Ninja's fault.
@Ravenot: If it was Magic Jar, I believe the Cleric should have had one round to back up the Ninja and maybe Protection from Evil someone, since returning to the Jar is a Standard action and possessing is a Full-Round action.
It indeed was a Magic Jar spell. OOC I never told them what spell was cast (to prevent metagaming) and IC, those that saw the spell as it was cast all failed spellcraft rolls to identify it. The characters (And players) had no idea what mechanics were going on, just that some of the party members were suddenly becoming possessed. I specifically did not break them out of initiative, and the players spent most of that time subduing the Diviner, then standing around waiting to see what happened next. Plenty of time to keep hopping from the Jar back to a new body.
I really appreciate the input here. A few things i'd like to note:
If any player causes the death of another player in my games, that's a -1 to leadership score. It's an additional modifier I will enforce because it is a serious issue. If you are reckless and cause people to die around you, whether you are leading them or not, it will just plain cause many people to avoid you because you're a harbinger of same-team death.
This specific case however, is fuzzy. Circumstances make it so that the player death is an indirect cause. The above arguments I believe are all incorrect to the situation.
But let me give you an example. A member of the party is dominated by a opponent and kills one of his party. Will you blame the dominated for killing his fellow ? Will you penalize him if he had the Leadership feat?
1. Wasn't his fault - the death was directy due to the actions of an enemy. Would the ninja be blamed if an enemy sorcerer fried the barbarian with a fireball? So the enemy got off a spell and killed a PC, that's not any party member's direct fault.
Both of these are completely different situations of direct confrontation. Neither involve the Ninja or his actions. A more correct representation would be that of an enemy holding a hostage with a knife to his throat. He then tells them, "Don't come in the room, or i'll kill the hostage!". The ninja then tries to stealth into the room, is seen, and the hostage is killed. I would blame that death as a result of the Ninja's actions.
Change it up and make it a spellcaster with a held action to cast power word:kill, pointed at the party. He tells them, "Don't hurt me, or i'll release my spell that will kill one of your party!". The Ninja then attacks, and the spell is released, killing a party member.
These are situations more in line with actions of the Ninja causing the result of the party death, not just a direct confrontation. Yes, the Ninja was trying to "finish off" his enemy. However, he was going at it in a hack and slash manner, which is not the way my games are run. Some situations require more than "I STAB IT!" to solve. At this point in the encounter, it had effectively turned into a hostage situation, that was ignored. Party death resulted.
The fact that the Barbarian was later raised has, in my opinion, absolutely no effect on the Ninja's leadership score. The Ninja did not assist with any of the funds of the raise. In fact, the Cleric was the one who cast Speak with Dead to find out the Barbarians wishes, and contributed half of the price of the raise from his own personal funds, the other half coming from the Barbarians money. The ninja did nothing monetarily to get the Barbarian raised, nor did he cast the raise spell. Thus, the Ninja did not raise the Barbarian, and any modifiers for the subsequent raising of the Barbarian should not effect the Ninja. However, I would entertain the thought of giving a small bonus to the Cleric's Leadership score, should he take the feat.
That said, I still concede that the Ninja should not be penalized for the Barbarian's death on a completely different reason: The situation is fuzzy enough, with few witnesses, and enough ambiguity, that little to no one would realize that the Ninja caused it. I did not think of factoring in the rumor-mill effect to this modifier, and once brought to my attention it very well makes sense that the death would blend into obscure recollection and no real proven accountability among possible followers.
@MisterSlanky, you do bring up good points regarding scale of Great Renown. I'm entertaining the thought of giving him a +1 for recruiting solely among his fellow Ninja as suggested by DM_Blake, since he keeps himself incognito against all other sources.
Regarding the "Moving Around" argument, DM_Blake, you say that it's poorly defined. I find no such case. Your example of a teamster moving all the time, but within the same town, to me is an example of "Staying put". He never leaves town. Followers could always find him within an hour or so. He'd always be within a mile or two of his followers based in the town. The modifier seems to be (at least in spirit) based on distance and shuffling the followers around those distances, forcing them to travel more often and be more nomadic, in a sense. This is not the case when driving across town and back all day. Everyone still gets to sleep in their own bed at the end of the day. Traveling from Magnimar to Sandpoint starts touching on this, but it isn't too severe, if not done often. Travelling from Magnimar to Turtleback is a weeks time by boat. That's quite a distance. Since he's just now recruiting these followers, and then IMMEDIATELY asking them to move a week's travel away to a Fort that the party has currently owned for ONE day... there's not a whole lot solid foundation here currently for staying in place. Perhaps at a later time, yes it will be removed, but currently as it stands, that penalty stays.