Is it implied that NPC allies are able to take the recruiter role for the rebellion? I haven't seen anything implying they can or can't other than brief descriptions about NPCs taking leadership roles in the rebellion.
Has anyone allowed this? What are your thoughts on it?
|
Not only can NPCs take on the Recruiter role, they can take on other roles too. In fact, as the game goes on, NPCs were intended to replace PCs in the roles (can't remember where, but James Jacobs said so).
As for Recruiters, it's actually advantageous to put an NPC in the role from the start, since the role's benefit is keyed off level, and while the PCs will be level 1 or 2 when the rebellion starts, their strongest allies will be level 3.
No, that's not an option. Quoting the rules in the player's guide (p. 23): "The roles of officers are generally taken by PCs, although certain important NPC allies can serve as officers as well. Your GM has information on these NPCs." Not all NPC allies can take an officer role.
As I looked through the AP, I could only find two: Jilia Bainilus and Mialari Docur. (See Dance of the Damned, p. 57.) Since these are the only two NPC's (I could find) that have the explicit sentence: <NPC> can serve as an officer in the Silver Ravens, I assume other NPC's without that declaration cannot serve. Also since alliance with those two NPC's doesn't happen until Book 3, it's not an option for the 1st 10 levels of the Rebellion (at a minimum.) And really Jilia is only available after Book 3 is finished.
If Mr. Jacobs has given clarification to the contrary, it would be helpful to know/see a link, etc.
The "Unique Allies" section of Song of Silver says that "All of these unique allies can function as officers for the rebellion." and then lists:
But that being said, it would make sense for earlier NPCs to be able to take roles as well. Especially since my group is only 4 people and, even though an empty officer role doesn't have a negative effect, it's nice to have each of the roles filled. I don't see a reason why an NPC couldn't fill a position that a PC could.
(But I'd limit the amount of people that could be recruiters/limit the bonus to the roll)
Hmmm, yes, but...
Chuko doesn't join the Rebellion until Book 4 (at least as presented in the AP)
Hetamon pointedly avoids joining the Silver Ravens until Book 2 though notably his ally entry there doesn't mention officer role eligibility.
Molly doesn't join the Rebellion until Book 3 at the earliest and in Book 4 as written.
and the rest are incapable of joining the Rebellion until the pc's rescue them in Book 4 (or very end of Book 3 for Shensen.)
My interpretation (admittedly my interpretation) is this in reference is to eligibility to take on leadership of a district. It also supplies fill-ins for leader roles in a section of the AP that might be very dangerous for the pc's.
All that said, it certainly seems reasonable for gamemasters to permit other allies to be leaders. Hardly seems game breaking. My correction above wasn't meant to say it was a bad idea, merely not RAW (as I read it.)
Rexus and Octavio appear particularly good choices from early in the AP.
I'd also agree that adding a lot of recruiters could be game-breaking. I already created a home rule - more like another interpretation. The pc's could have multiple recruiters (since the rules explicitly permit it) but that meant a) the pc's have to spend most of that week in town (and not crafting magic items, etc.) and b) would be exposed to some risk. If you want the bonus from your levels, your character has to be out trying to recruit people. You can do it discretely but you can't do it invisibly. I didn't quantify or game mechanic this risk, I deliberately left it open for me to exploit later. And to prevent the following:
Player: Oh no, that could never happen to me. I spent the whole week in the hideout. I never said I did anything else.
ME: No, you're a recruiter. You left the hideout to recruit. Multiple times. And you didn't take a Rebellion action to remove yourself as a recruiter."
That all makes sense, Latrecis.
I think, in order to add some risk to it, I'd roll a Secrecy check for each of the PCs and NPCs that was a Recruiter. On a failed check, Notoriety goes up and possibly the Recruiter is imprisoned. Whenever the group is recruiting supporters they can choose who is out there trying to find suitable people; anyone not recruiting that turn isn't subject to a Secrecy check.
I agree, you can just go by what NPCs provide the most fun for the party. It's not a great balance issue, is it? Morgar ended up a leader, sort of the common 'Bro to keep them grounded. It's not like his stats provide them with a huge advantage. Rexus is sort of their revolutionary theorist since he's the one who read the Silver Ravens book. He's a recruiter.
At the very least, I’m glad to know that I didn’t miss something and we’ve entered the realm of GM fiat. I think the pacing of my game is quicker than intended. (We’re in week 6 and the have the dual climax of book 2 left to do.) With respect to that, I might introduce the ability to use Octavio and Hetamon as Recruiters.Thematically it makes sense, the timing in my game would be right, and it’s definitely not game breaking to do so.
For any future GMs, I really like the idea of making Recruiting a non-rebellion action requiring a Secrecy check. I haven’t looked at the numbers, but a DC 20 seems fair. Failure by 5 or more should increase Notoriety by 1D6. If the check fails by 10 or more, or a Natural 1, it results in a rise in Noteriety of 2d6 and the recruiter being apprehended.
I assume you're using the rebellion rules, right? (Just looking for clarity as I'm surprised that a group would be that far along in so few weeks. But that being said, my group is nearly finished book 1 and it's only been 2 weeks so far. But I'm not using the rebellion mechanic as written.)
Yes we’re usung the rebellion mechanics. There’s not a huge way for the rebellion to change the time schedule other than the desire to create and have more teams. They’ve set a good pace. Really, the reason for it has been their desire to pursue every rumor that’s presented. This has been a double edged sword though as my players have expressed the desire to have some down time and explore crafting and further advance their teams. It’s definitely a good time to introduce a new time schedule seeing as the LB doesn’t have an expiration date and I can introduce Varl at any point.
Ah, okay.
I was thinking that a group using the rebellion mechanic would do more downtime by having the teams do things and what-not.