Modifying the Leadership feat

Trodax

Mongoose
I'm thinking of implementing a houserule for the Leadership feat and thought I'd run it by you folks for inspection.

What's been bugging me with the feat as it stands, is that the followers you gain from the feat are almost exclusively 1st level. I guess this depends totally on how you play, but in my game I use sort of the following rough guideline: 1st level = rookies & conscripts, 2nd level = seasoned warriors, 3rd level = veterans. It just doesn't sit right with me that a kozak chief should be restricted to 1st level followers, for example.

What I was thinking of doing was to allow the total levels of followers to be rearranged. Basically, you'd sum up the level of all followers and divide as appropriate, with the caveat that no follower could ever be higher than 3rd level.
For example, someone with a Leadership score of 18 would normally get 100 1st level, 4 2nd level, 2 3rd level and 1 4th level follower (making a total of 118 levels). Depending on circumstances, you could then choose to have 118 rookies (1st level) or 59 seasoned warriors (2nd level) or 39 veterans (3rd level), or any combination of different levelled followers.

What do you think? Would the feat still be reasonably balanced?
 
In our game we just put up all the levels of the followers you get by one, so you don't get anyone lower then second level.
 
jadrax said:
In our game we just put up all the levels of the followers you get by one, so you don't get anyone lower then second level.
OK, that works as well. It does what I want, namely to make followers more than 1st level bozos.
 
Tordax.

Seems as though it should work fine. You put a level limiter in so I don't see you will have any problem with that.
 
Having thought about it a bit more, I'm not sure the relationship between levels I proposed above (1 1st level = 1/2 2nd level = 1/3 3rd level) is as balanced as it could be.
I think you'd almost always be better off with 100 1st level followers than with 50 2nd level or 33 3rd level, for example (at least I think 100 1st level characters would kick the ass of 50 2nd level characters, but I'm not sure).

Perhaps this would be better: 1 1st level = 2/3 2nd level = 1/2 3rd level (so you could have 100 1st level, 67 2nd level or 50 3rd level followers)?

How would you 'balance' followers of different levels?
 
Gosh. I can't remember the exact wording of the Leadership feat, but if it grants X levels of followers, then those levels ought to be able to be allocated any way you deem it. At least that's how I think it should work.

If you get 10 levels of followers, you could assign a level 4 guy as a right-hand, two level 3 assistants for him. That's 10 levels. Or a single level 3, two level 2's and a couple of level 1's for good measure.
 
I think I like your original idea better - the total levels are what matters. 1st level is 1/2 of 2nd level and 1/3 of 3rd level.

It seems to fit the "feel" of Conan more to me. There always seem to be a lot of cannon fodder, and only a few trusted veterans.

But great moderation on this feat though. Thanks for sharing!
 
Our group did the total levels with a cap of whatever the highest level follower you can get is. E.g. if you can get 1 4th level follower you could get. This way you could get a more powerful "honor guard" as you elveld up, but you couldn't just say "I've got twenty 12th level followers."
 
*bump*

I'm just playing around with the Leadership feat. It's pretty important to put a cap on the highest level you can get when moving the followers around.

For a Level 18 character, for example, a Leadership score of, say, 25 is not unrealistic. The gives you 400 Level 1s. Without any level restriction you could trade these in for over 30 Level 12 (because 12 is your cohort level) -- or even 24 Level 16s if you ignore cohort level as well.

Now 400 1st-levels are pretty worthless for a Level 18 Man Who Would Be King (tm). But 80 Level 5s, now that's a different story... with the kind of money you should have then, you can outfit them all with a good warhorse, decent armour (mail shirt or hauberk and helm), and shiny weapons (broadsword) and all... it's gonna cost you, but hell, that would really do for a guard of honour.
And wait till your Leadership score is 28, then you can have a company of 150 Level 6 Heavy Cavalry. Whoa. (or Footmen, if you prefer that, of course). Your Cohort would be your Lieutenant and lead that company when you have other things to do.

Yup, I like that house rule much, much better than the RAW. 400 Level 1s, my ass.
 
400 Level 1s, my ass
But they can be useful too, just imagine 400 level one archers raining down arrows on the front rank of an elite unit of 80 level 5 characters. If the 400 mooks all shoot at 20 of the elite in one round then those elite get 20 arrows each heading at them and with the 20th arrow getting +20 to hit that's going to be a lot of very hurt elites.
 
Daz, Why would the 20th arrow get +20 to attack, is that from the multiple attacker rule?

BTW, Trodax, I like your first idea of adding the levels together and having that distributed around as you please.

Yeah first level characters are cannon fodder, but if the 400+ are dressed up in armor and swords and horses and are terrorizing a village in your Kozak Horde, it might make a greater impression on the population than 40 dudes.
 
Daz, Why would the 20th arrow get +20 to attack, is that from the multiple attacker rule?
I think the multiple attacker rule applies to ranged attack, if it doesn't it should this isn't the Matrix.

The bigger lower level army would win almost every time against a smaller elite army with an equal number of total levels in a nice level battlefield but the smaller army would have plenty of advantages like being harder to spot, need less food, be more maneuverable, be good at defending passes, more useful for taking along as redshirts on adventures, etc. etc.

I'd call it balanced as long as you cap the level of your followers at a reasonable level.
 
hmm, I think idea about adding the 1st levelers up to make a bigger level guy would be nice, but I think you get them too high then you'd have a nother cohort. I like the bunch of low level mooks running around, could be a representation of a town willing to follow your words of wisdom and such, or maybe a low group of thugs or loyal soldiers. I would just make the original guys the second levelers you get when your score goes up to show the experience they are worth. I freeform Leadership a lot in my games. I do like that it is a little more useful in Conan and realistic than it is in D&D.
 
Actually this post raises a question that maybe you all can help me with: what are the two Leadership scores representations of in the books I have. Is one the unmodified and the other the modified one, or is one the original and the other the maximum he could have in certain situations that favor him?

Thanks! :)
 
those elite get 20 arrows each heading at them and with the 20th arrow getting +20 to hit that's going to be a lot of very hurt elites.

I'm not sure if that sounds right. I can't look it up right now because I don't have my book at hand, will do that tonight or so.
However, I _think_ that there should be some cap to the "multiple attackers" rule, at +8 or something. I don't see how 19 arrows all missing their mark should help a 20th arrow bypass the armour DR (if that is the intention-- as I said I can't look it up right now). But even if this is the case, the elite would suffer maybe 4 or 5 points of damage per round. A level 5 should be alive and kicking for 10 rounds or so.

On the other hand (without Multiple Attacker boni), statistically every 20th arrow is going to hit anyway due to Natural 20. Such a hit would get almost completely absorbed by the opponent's DR. The higher levels (5 or 6) should be good to go for at least 30 rounds.

A small company of 80 level 5 Heavy Riders would not just sit there and get shot at for dozens of rounds, but set their lances and charge.
Remember the Battle of Pelennor Fields, anyone? ^_^ They would MOW the firstlevels down like the reaper in the wheat. The lowlevel regiment would be routed in no time. What doesn't get speared, cloven in two or simply ridden down will fly for their miserable lives. The higher level riders may suffer some losses, but probably not very many.

The situation would be different if the lowlevel regiment was fortified, but then the riders would simply stay out of range and wait till the defenders run out of food or something.
 
Double post. I'm not editing because I have several things to say/ask:

concerning Multiple Opponents: my core book (1e) specifically states that the attack bonus for subsequent attackers, quote, only ever applies to melee attacks. It couldn't be more clear. Not a single measly extra attack bonus point for any number of thugs peppering you with arrows.
Thus, when lowlevels fire on an elite warrior whose DV is out of their reach (also take distance into account), only every 20th attack (on average) is going to hit due to the rule of natural 20.

Secondly. What set of stats would be appropriate for Followers? Suppose you're trying to attract Soldiers. How should their ability scores be determined?
 
concerning Multiple Opponents: my core book (1e) specifically states that the attack bonus for subsequent attackers, quote, only ever applies to melee attacks. It couldn't be more clear. Not a single measly extra attack bonus point for any number of thugs peppering you with arrows.
Hmmm, you are indeed correct. Probably time to house rule that, this isn't freaking Neo in bullet-time...
 
I'd say the designers wrote that rule so clearly because they wanted to make absolutely sure it wouldn't be applied to ranged attacks. And they probably did so because they tried it out and found it could be abused. When I see a rule as explicitly clear as that, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
 
Clovenhoof said:
I'd say the designers wrote that rule so clearly because they wanted to make absolutely sure it wouldn't be applied to ranged attacks. And they probably did so because they tried it out and found it could be abused. When I see a rule as explicitly clear as that, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

OTOH it's hardly realistic that high level character can just wade in through 100 arrow without any harm if he has high enough DV and DR. Sorry but armour doesn't make you invulnerable to arrows. Fire enough of them and you can't avoid being hurt if those arrows can hit you(ie you aren't inside building or elsewhere it's physically impossible to hit you).

This isn't matrix :lol:

I know for one I will be applying this for ranged attacks as well. You don't want to get killed by arrows? Don't try to charge 100 archers then :D
 
Back
Top