PDA

View Full Version : Leadership, would you allow this?



Kalrik
2010-08-04, 09:54 PM
Pc takes Leadership at 11th level. Through sheer cheeze is able to pull off a 28 charisma for a leadership score of 23. I don't have my book in front of me, but that gives the PC at least 20 level one followers.

So, the question. Would you allow the PC to recruit 20 artisans with max ranks in profession X and skill focus: Profession X,(Say they have a 12 wisdom, giving them a minimum of 9 on a profession roll.) and then reap the weekly gp rewards from his/her minions?

I have never played with leadership or been in a game where it was allowed, so I don't have a baseline...it looks like this is how it is SUPPOSED to work.

drengnikrafe
2010-08-04, 10:09 PM
I was under the impression that the level one mooks just stand around and look commoner-y, but... I believe that what it all comes down to is it shouldn't upset game balance. If the player wants to call off adventuring for a few months to roll in money, probably not.
Also, these artisans can provide a new plot point. Maybe they come under attack. Maybe somebody thinks they're being ripped off by the artisans and the PC has to come to their aid.

Hirax
2010-08-04, 10:15 PM
The DM controls how a PC gets their followers. You don't necessarily have to give them what they want, and even if you do they don't have to get all the followers at once. If it isn't realistic in the character's current circumstances you could simply say that they can't recruit 30 artisans because there aren't 30 artisans to recruit. Especially if they're in a small town where they might not even be 30 people willing to join him at all. Make them work to get them, by traveling around to recruit them. You don't just put a sign up sheet in the town square and they appear the next day.

Grumman
2010-08-04, 10:16 PM
You'd be better off with something like 18 craftsmen and 2 professionals: craftsmen make more money.

Assuming all your workers are taking 10, your craftsmen would be earning 18 * 18 * 2/3 silver pieces per week (21.6 gp per week), and your professionals would be earning 18 / 2 gold pieces per week (9 gp per week). They would also require 8 silver pieces per day for food and lodging, giving a per person per week profit of 16 gp and 3.4 gp respectively. As a consequence, you would be spending a feat to earn 294.8 gold pieces per week, at level 11.

I would not consider this to be broken.

Marnath
2010-08-04, 10:16 PM
I would only let the player take some of their income. These people may be content to do what he says just out of rabid fanaticism, but they still have to eat, buy clothes etc.

holywhippet
2010-08-04, 10:18 PM
From the SRD:


A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment.

So you could try to pick up people with a particular skillset, but it's up the DM to decide how common that skillset is and how hard it will be to find someone with it who is willing to join up with it.

For example, if you in a poor farming area you wouldn't expect to find a master weaponsmith.

urbanpirate
2010-08-04, 10:18 PM
artisans with high skill ranks are going to want to get PAID. perhaps one of his higher level followers also has leadership. if he can attract a level 6 follower. if not one might be a diplomancer with union building ideas.

or word will get out that there are a bunch of fairly unprotected crafters with huge amounts of resources just over there...

gallagher
2010-08-04, 10:26 PM
i always shoot for a bunch of low level wizards (in a big city, not that hard. look for people turned down from the mages guild or something). now you have a craft factory. sure it isnt a whole lot, and they cant make some of the big items, but what you cant use, they can sell at slightly lower than market price. if you can get them to all have different crafting abilities, and have some blacksmiths in there and woodsmen, you can start a magical walmart

Grumman
2010-08-04, 10:27 PM
or word will get out that there are a bunch of fairly unprotected crafters with huge amounts of resources just over there...
Hell no. DMs pulling this kind of **** is the whole reason the single orphan hobo is a desirable adventurer background. Treating character background as a tool to annoy the player just ensures that you won't get interesting character backgrounds.

balistafreak
2010-08-04, 10:39 PM
11th level, and a character wants to burn a feat to make a few hundred gold a week?

I wouldn't allow it, because I'd be throwing the DMG at his head.

And not because it's broken, but because it's the most banal reason to take a feat ever (seriously, you're at 11th level and you want a few hundred extra gold?). That is not what feats are for. And an 11th level adventurer is probably still adventuring, so it's not as if the gold can magically jump into his pocket.

What's he planning on doing with his cohort?

Marnath
2010-08-04, 11:55 PM
Hell no. DMs pulling this kind of **** is the whole reason the single orphan hobo is a desirable adventurer background. Treating character background as a tool to annoy the player just ensures that you won't get interesting character backgrounds.

This. So much this. Where is it written that a character can't have living family, a nice home and a community that loves them peopled by craftsmen/farmers who pay tribute for helping them out over the years without sending a horde of orcs to burn it down because you're a jerk DM? Not every village is in danger from monsters or random acts of Gods.

*edit i'm not saying the OP does this, just a general rant.

FelixG
2010-08-05, 12:03 AM
11th level, and a character wants to burn a feat to make a few hundred gold a week?

I wouldn't allow it, because I'd be throwing the DMG at his head.

And not because it's broken, but because it's the most banal reason to take a feat ever (seriously, you're at 11th level and you want a few hundred extra gold?). That is not what feats are for. And an 11th level adventurer is probably still adventuring, so it's not as if the gold can magically jump into his pocket.

What's he planning on doing with his cohort?

Why would you throw a DMG at a players head who wants their character to be a leader of industry?

Is there something wrong with a character who aspires to maybe run a business on the side? Would you throw a book at a player who buys a building and sets up a bounty hunting office? If not why throw the book at a person who is industrious?

Story is good, and so what if they use one of their feats to do this? its their character! Heck they could do the same buy hiring skilled laborers (3 sp/day if i remember) and do the same thing theoretically, would you still hit him with a book?

Urpriest
2010-08-05, 12:07 AM
Why would you throw a DMG at a players head who wants their character to be a leader of industry?

Is there something wrong with a character who aspires to maybe run a business on the side? Would you throw a book at a player who buys a building and sets up a bounty hunting office? If not why throw the book at a person who is industrious?

Story is good, and so what if they use one of their feats to do this? its their character! Heck they could do the same buy hiring skilled laborers (3 sp/day if i remember) and do the same thing theoretically, would you still hit him with a book?

Because the player isn't (as far as the OP described) using a feat to be a leader of industry. The player is using a feat to get ~300gp per week. At level 11. The player isn't thinking about the community that the followers are part of, the nature of the business, etc. The player wants extra money. Insignificant extra money. The player values 300gp a week (and not the roleplaying meaning or anything like that) at a feat.

FelixG
2010-08-05, 12:10 AM
Because the player isn't (as far as the OP described) using a feat to be a leader of industry. The player is using a feat to get ~300gp per week. At level 11. The player isn't thinking about the community that the followers are part of, the nature of the business, etc. The player wants extra money. Insignificant extra money. The player values 300gp a week (and not the roleplaying meaning or anything like that) at a feat.

Well, in that case its a role playing opportunity, I would still allow it but there is always the logistical issues, you cant exactly drag those crafters around with you and unless you have some kind of runner or system to get that gold to you its not worth too terribly much.

Hirax
2010-08-05, 12:13 AM
Because the player isn't (as far as the OP described) using a feat to be a leader of industry. The player is using a feat to get ~300gp per week. At level 11. The player isn't thinking about the community that the followers are part of, the nature of the business, etc. The player wants extra money. Insignificant extra money. The player values 300gp a week (and not the roleplaying meaning or anything like that) at a feat.

That's the key difference. If someone were to roleplay and lay out their business, assign jobs, accommodations, and provisions to their followers, I think it would be reasonable to let them become a merchant prince. If they were to just say 'I take leadership and now have followers dumping cash into my pockets,' then yeah, screw that. Let them get their 300GP a week (or whatever they can through RAW), so long as they really work for it through roleplaying, because that's then something you could work into the story. It should be subject to attack though. What sort of business has no security?

FelixG
2010-08-05, 12:15 AM
That's the key difference. If someone were to roleplay and lay out their business, assign jobs, accommodations, and provisions to their followers, I think it would be reasonable to let them become a merchant prince. If they were to just say 'I take leadership and now have followers dumping cash into my pockets,' then yeah, screw that. Let them get their 300GP a week (or whatever they can through RAW), so long as they really work for it through roleplaying, because that's then something you could work into the story. It should be subject to attack though. What sort of business has no security?

Generally speaking? The sort of business in a walled city?

Hirax
2010-08-05, 12:18 AM
Generally speaking? The sort of business in a walled city?

I don't understand what part of my post that was in response to.

Grumman
2010-08-05, 12:31 AM
I don't understand what part of my post that was in response to.
The part where you suggested that anyone would decide to attack a specific business in a city, that is indistinguishable from all the others except for the risk of swift and brutal crushing at the hands of its superhuman patron.

Hirax
2010-08-05, 12:35 AM
The part where you suggested that anyone would decide to attack a specific business in a city, that is indistinguishable from all the others except for the risk of swift and brutal crushing at the hands of its superhuman patron.

I don't get your point. There are robbers in cities. Robbers that might very well be ignorant the nature of the business they're breaking into. The larger point is that they can't just set it up and ignore it as though it's an everflowing fountain of gold. They need to maintain it.

Psyx
2010-08-05, 02:46 AM
I would not allow a PC to waste a feat doing what he could do with roleplaying and some thought. Ie Setting up a business.

Kaww
2010-08-05, 05:13 AM
I would not allow a PC to waste a feat doing what he could do with roleplaying and some thought. Ie Setting up a business.

I'd allow it. Reason is the same as yours is for not allowing it. You can make more money, xp and items adventuring.

He has to pay for: tools, accommodation, food, tax (he might not even know about it... pure fun), raw materials...

He has to: find a place for them to work (IE pay rent), make sure they are all healthy, settle disputes among them, make sure that nobody has any issue with the authorities...

Hell, with all this fun stuff for me to do I'd say take it for free and you can have 100 workers. It's your own curse part I'd keep for myself.

FelixG
2010-08-05, 05:16 AM
I don't understand what part of my post that was in response to.

It was in response to the part where you ask what sort of business has no guards, i was meaning that a business in a city could reasonably expect to be protected by the town malitia/guards like any NPC enterprise.


I don't get your point. There are robbers in cities. Robbers that might very well be ignorant the nature of the business they're breaking into. The larger point is that they can't just set it up and ignore it as though it's an everflowing fountain of gold. They need to maintain it.

This is a good point, but again after the player spends the feat to set it up some of the gold could turn up missing from each shipment, instant plot hook right there. Could be bandits sneaking in knowing how profitable it is, corrupt guards demanding a protection fee ect. If the player is smart he would pay off the Theives guild to keep an eye on the place for him :P

But yes maintenance is key, i am simply pointing out that if a player wants to use a feat for this he should be allowed to, but he should also be smart about it.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-05, 05:17 AM
Pc takes Leadership at 11th level. Through sheer cheeze is able to pull off a 28 charisma for a leadership score of 23. I don't have my book in front of me, but that gives the PC at least 20 level one followers.

So, the question. Would you allow the PC to recruit 20 artisans with max ranks in profession X and skill focus: Profession X,(Say they have a 12 wisdom, giving them a minimum of 9 on a profession roll.) and then reap the weekly gp rewards from his/her minions?

I have never played with leadership or been in a game where it was allowed, so I don't have a baseline...it looks like this is how it is SUPPOSED to work.

Wouldn't care. Ive frequently had players set up shops, trade routes, or other money making schemes. WBL is a rough guideline at best. If poorly thought out, these schemes end in hilarity, and when done well, the extra few gold isn't really a big deal in balance terms, plus, what better way to give the character ties to the game world?

Compare against the feat in SBG for the purpose of gaining wealth via investment in a building. Its not spectacular, even though you can use it to generate a LOT of wealth. I'd consider this one of the more appropriate uses of leadership. That feat can be broken vastly more ridiculously in all sorts of ways. The only thing this is saving him is the fees spent hiring a bunch of low level craftsmen.

jiriku
2010-08-05, 05:34 AM
Pc takes Leadership at 11th level. Through sheer cheeze is able to pull off a 28 charisma for a leadership score of 23. I don't have my book in front of me, but that gives the PC at least 20 level one followers.

So, the question. Would you allow the PC to recruit 20 artisans with max ranks in profession X and skill focus: Profession X,(Say they have a 12 wisdom, giving them a minimum of 9 on a profession roll.) and then reap the weekly gp rewards from his/her minions?

I have never played with leadership or been in a game where it was allowed, so I don't have a baseline...it looks like this is how it is SUPPOSED to work.

OK, first thing to set straight: Leadership does NOT give the player the right to assign race, stats, classes, or skill choices for his cohorts or his followers. As the DM, that right belongs exclusively to you. He can search for people who have particular talents (i.e. ask you for something specific), but the game specifically places the final decision about those NPCs with you. So, if you're comfortable with craftsmen who have maxed ranks and optimized stats, then yes! This is a perfectly valid and legitimate use of the feat. Moreover, he's already paid for it by spending a feat and by spending whatever character options he devoted to improving his Leadership score. However, if it's not something that suits the campaign, you're well within your rights to propose an alternative or modify his request.

Psyx
2010-08-05, 06:23 AM
I'd allow it. Reason is the same as yours is for not allowing it.


I don't particularly like PCs doing this kind of thing, because we're not playing 'Butchers and Bakers' the RPG. However, they're welcome to do so if they like. Although there's a reason that it takes years for rich merchants to become rich merchants. Running a business is hard work, and not a license to print money.

I would not let a PC spend a feat on this for quite a few reasons:

1) The Leadership feat is a hold-over to 1st Ed. I want my players to have ONE character each, so it's not something I ever allow anyway.

2) Feats are precious, and represent things that you as a PC learn. Spending one to have a bunch of peasants working for you is somewhat akin to buying Toughness in my mind. Worse even, because one does not need to spend a feat to start a business: It's absurd. Roleplay, not roll-play.

3) And if a player does blow a feat on this, then they would feel 'robbed' if it didn't do exactly what they wanted it to achieve and work like a magic money machine. And I don't want that, because running a business isn't going to go exactly as they plan it, and I want to be able to use it for plot hooks, and for it to fail miserably if not thought about. If the player had sunk a feat into it, they would be enormously upset if - 6 game months and several thousand gp down the line - all they had to show for it was a burned-out warehouse, a picket-line of workers, and an irate merchant's, stevedor's and thief's guild gunning for them.



Tl;dr: This is the worst idea since affiliations. Feats should not replace roleplaying and thought. GMs should use stuff like this for plot.

jiriku
2010-08-05, 06:27 AM
Feats are precious, and represent things that you as a PC learn. Spending one to have a bunch of peasants working for you is somewhat akin to buying Toughness in my mind.

Let us not forget that the player also gets an ECL-2 cohort for his trouble. This is not small potatoes.

And seriously, people, what ELSE should he look to do with his low-level followers? Take commoners and tell them to farm? The player should be rewarded for attempting to make use of an oft-ignored component of the feat, not scolded for failing to roleplay.

Zen Master
2010-08-05, 07:04 AM
Pc takes Leadership at 11th level. Through sheer cheeze is able to pull off a 28 charisma for a leadership score of 23. I don't have my book in front of me, but that gives the PC at least 20 level one followers.

So, the question. Would you allow the PC to recruit 20 artisans with max ranks in profession X and skill focus: Profession X,(Say they have a 12 wisdom, giving them a minimum of 9 on a profession roll.) and then reap the weekly gp rewards from his/her minions?

I have never played with leadership or been in a game where it was allowed, so I don't have a baseline...it looks like this is how it is SUPPOSED to work.

Any enterprise has expenses - and problems.

So ... you get 20 artisans (of varying skill, naturally). Now, they may produce income, but not until they have all the needed tools - so first, you need to setup a workshop for them. Then, of course, they will want decent wages - which must be deducted from the income they generate. Of course, there will also be maintainance of the workshop.

Now we have a production. The lets look at market, and distribution. If you're in a large city, you may be able to sell your stock locally - but there will be suppliers in place already - the only way to displace them is to offer lower prices (well - potentially). Again, cutting profit. You will need stores to sell your production, as well as warehouses and transportation.

And so on, and so on. Guilds may want to regulate your trade, there will be taxes to pay, competitors may try to ruin you by torching your assets.

It is, by and large, easier to inform the player in question: This isn't the intended use of the feat. However, if you invest a feat, I will allow that feat to give you a set, steady income that requires no micro management.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-08-05, 07:30 AM
There's no way he'd be taking 100% of everything they make, these craftsmen have families to feed after all! He could tax them if he has the legal right to do so, otherwise the most he can hope to do is solicit donations. They may already be taxed by the local authority, and cannot afford to give the PC anything at all.

What type of economy do these artisans exist in? A leadership score of 23 gives him ninety level one followers. He could have recruited an entire village, and they just pass the same money around week after week. Everyone makes and spends money and the community (and the character) makes no profit because there are no exports. This isn't an MMO where you click and money appears, it has to come from somewhere.

Even if they live in a larger community, he'd probably have to buy some sort of compound to house them in (90+ families of 5-8 people, the head of household/breadwinner is his follower), pay to feed and clothe them all, and provide for their medical and recreational needs. Only then could he hope to collect the majority of what they make, and he'd still need to let them keep an allowance to cover whatever he doesn't provide. Even after that, the locals may get mad at him or his followers for any number of reasons. (They took our jerbs! or It's a new cult! or These parasites don't give anything back to our community!) Basic economics would indicate that if he takes a volume of wealth out of a community, a recession and even depression would result as the community becomes impoverished. He and his followers would definitely be singled out as the cause, and be persecuted, criminally prosecuted, driven out, or even attacked and killed by the local community.

Recruiting that many followers should require some sort of act of bravery on their behalf. If he were to claim some abandoned castle, probably having to drive out the current monstrous occupants, he could set up a nice base of operations with these followers as its residents and caretakers. Depending on the surrounding lands, he could have followers specialized in forestry, mining, and farming. Others would be craftsmen of various trades, from blacksmiths, cooks, and carpenters to weaponsmiths and armorers. These people would probably be the former servants of the castle's former owners, and a local village which the PC had just saved from months of constant attacks and raiding. Many of them would be warriors who could defend the lands, and most of the higher-level followers should be adepts who see to the residents' religious and medical needs. In this case, use the guidelines in the Campaigns chapter of the DMG for the makeup of the community, and determine what sort of tax they could afford to pay him. Be sure to remind him that this will be more of a responsibility than a profitable enterprise. If a character wants to be in charge of a community, that is more a character development issue than something that can be dealt with by simple game mechanics.

Chrizzt
2010-08-05, 07:49 AM
I have read somewhere here on the boards the suggestion to replace the standard leadership rules with the possibility to create an own affiliation / organization, where (exclusively?) you can get boni the more powerful you become / the more you do for your followers.

I don't recall where exactly, though. Can anyone point to these rules? (Homebrew, perhaps)

ScionoftheVoid
2010-08-05, 07:54 AM
I'd advise the player to do something more useful with the cohort, but I would allow it. Actually I'd allow and encourage a player to have followers with Craft: Currency. Having people craft three gold pieces for every gp of materials they're given.

It might be fun to have everyone in the party take Leadership and create a town, ruled by the PC's cohorts in their absence.

KiltedGrappler
2010-08-05, 08:22 AM
I had a player try and do something like this once. If the PC wants to retire from Adventuring to run a business (which is what it sounds like he's trying to do), then let him. Remember though, he'd only get a portion of the money, since otherwise it could be construed as slavery or indentured servitude.

So add to that the cost for warehouse space, work space, possible retail space, shipping, and other things that a business would need. Maybe having a few mages on payroll for things liek teleport, fire protection, things like that.

If he didn't want to stay home and "manage the shop" as it were, then he should get an even smaller percentage of the profits, sicne he'd have to pay for management, curriors to deliver messages back and forth, etc...

As you can see, I'm not sure the PC really thought out what he was gettign himself into. As anyone who has ever run even a small business can tell you, it takes up so much time that unless your heart is in it 100%, it'll fail. And even if you are all in, it might still fail.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-08-05, 08:31 AM
I had a player try and do something like this once. If the PC wants to retire from Adventuring to run a business (which is what it sounds like he's trying to do), then let him. Remember though, he'd only get a portion of the money, since otherwise it could be construed as slavery or indentured servitude.

So add to that the cost for warehouse space, work space, possible retail space, shipping, and other things that a business would need. Maybe having a few mages on payroll for things liek teleport, fire protection, things like that.

If he didn't want to stay home and "manage the shop" as it were, then he should get an even smaller percentage of the profits, sicne he'd have to pay for management, curriors to deliver messages back and forth, etc...

As you can see, I'm not sure the PC really thought out what he was gettign himself into. As anyone who has ever run even a small business can tell you, it takes up so much time that unless your heart is in it 100%, it'll fail. And even if you are all in, it might still fail.

I'm fairly sure most small business owners aren't at least level six with an oddly powerful ability to attract employees. Nor do they have someone of fourth level to run the place while they're away (more than fourth, if the Leader is higher than sixth level. I'm fairly sure the OP's example used level eleven, which gives a ninth level cohort).

Lysander
2010-08-05, 08:36 AM
Let him, but only if he adequately explains WHY these people are loyally following him. In this case, he would probably need to start a company in a large city and his artisan followers would be his employees. They wouldn't be fanatically loyal minions, just reasonably hard working and respectful employees.

KiltedGrappler
2010-08-05, 08:37 AM
I'm fairly sure most small business owners aren't at least level six with an oddly powerful ability to attract employees. Nor do they have someone of fourth level to run the place while they're away (more than fourth, if the Leader is higher than sixth level. I'm fairly sure the OP's example used level eleven, which gives a ninth level cohort).

Regardless, it sounds like the player is looking for a quick cash grab. I was trying to point out what it wouldn't be that simple.

Quietus
2010-08-05, 08:50 AM
Sounds to me like this is something that you need to take up with the player. Did he specifically come to you and say "I would like to take this feat so I can get money"? If so... hell, let him. Figure out how much he expects to get in return for his investment, and come to a fair agreement. Say, 10 GP per week per level, so 110 GP per week right now, isn't going to break your game, but it DOES represent some kind of business interest. If all he's after is the money and doesn't care about the roleplaying aspect, then call it "investments" or something; He has money in one of your world's big banks, which is growing over time, and it's assumed he places more in it as he gains access to more wealth, without him having to write it off his sheet.

If he wants to be the patron of a massive merchanting guild? Then THAT'S the perfect way to use Leadership, in my opinion. He goes out adventuring, they set aside X amount of whatever is made, and if they need his assistance, they use this fund to pay for spellcasting to contact him. Otherwise, he now has a small pile of gold building up whenever he comes back to town. Now he has a roleplay hook, and has tied himself to the world; You can throw in RP ties with whatever plot you have going on, too. Say you have to go speak to the Mayor of the next town over, and convince him to give you X particular piece of information : Now you have a great means of finding out what would be the perfect gift, and can get your cronies to whip one up for you. Or perhaps said Mayor has had his eye on a particular woman - who happens to be the eldest unmarried daughter of the man you have running your forges, and you can put in a good word for him. Lots of potential RP stuff there, without going into the "Well, someone is harming your business interests".

That being said, I'd also ask the player, in the case of this Leadership deal, how they feel about me using their business as a plot hook on occasion. Some will be fine with it, others won't want their cash flow interrupted, and either is valid, as long as player and DM agree on it.

thompur
2010-08-05, 08:51 AM
The way I see it is that there are several ways leadership has been handled:

1) DM creates cohort and followers with player input, DM runs NPCs.
2) DM creates cohort and followers without player input, DM runs NPCs.
3) Player creates cohort and followers with DM input, Player runs NPCs.
4) Player creates cohort and followers without DM input, Player runs NPCs.

In the games I've played where Leadership was allowed, the DMs preferred method 4. They were able to adjust their campaigns to accomodate the added power, and both actually utilized the back stories of the new characters.(Yes, we had to justify and provide in game reasons for attracting the followers.)

FelixG
2010-08-05, 09:04 AM
For those saying OMG you have to payz them: they are "devoted followers" they are drawn to serve you by your renown, if you look to the currency section of the DMG it points out DnD commoner families are self sufficient (growing food and making their own cloths ect)

If you had to pay the followers there wouldn't be a feat for it you would just look to the handy dandy "goods and services" section of your players handbook to see how much they cost.

On the subject of their tools: See the NPC wealth by level chart, with the wealth they have as first level NPCs they could come to you (again attracted by your renown not you hiring them from elsewhere) with tools and supplies already (masons and the like have their own tools)

The only thing you would really need is a place for them to work. Also the person could leave their cohort there to manage things and protect their investment :P

Arbitrarity
2010-08-05, 09:15 AM
And seriously, people, what ELSE should he look to do with his low-level followers? Take commoners and tell them to farm? The player should be rewarded for attempting to make use of an oft-ignored component of the feat, not scolded for failing to roleplay.

Well, once we had a player whip out Heroes of Battle, and that resulted in him directing archery barrages on targets with 50+ archers. It wasn't pretty for the monsters.
After that, we banned leadership.

hamishspence
2010-08-05, 09:20 AM
In a battle scene, that's about right. Really, an ordinary wizard without leadership can do more damage than artillery barrages.

However, such followers will probably get eaten if taken down a dungeon.

thompur
2010-08-05, 09:35 AM
In a battle scene, that's about right. Really, an ordinary wizard without leadership can do more damage than artillery barrages.

However, such followers will probably get eaten if taken down a dungeon.

Yeah, you don't take followers down into dungeons. That;s a good way to lose followers, and Leadership points.

2xMachina
2010-08-05, 10:03 AM
Ring gate abuse.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-08-05, 10:13 AM
No I would not allow that but then again I wouldn't allow leadership so its kind of a blanket coverage.

enderrocksonall
2010-08-05, 11:03 AM
In one of my campaigns, my character took Leadership, but tied it in with some of the actions that took place in game.

We had discovered the location of an artifact-level item that was basically the ultimate naval weapon, but it literally was fueled by gems, so we really didn't want it. We had a light-bulb moment and went to Waterdeep and offered to sell and deliver it to the lords in exchange for a castle. Our negotiations ended up with us getting a keep within the city walls for which we were responsible for paying taxes that totaled something like 5,000gp per year.

We wanted the keep, but we needed a way to keep up with the taxes without eating into our adventuring loot. So I came up with the idea to take Leadership and use the keep and followers to start a mercenary company and griffin hatchery. The DM and I spent literally about 4 hours outside of our normal gaming time working out exactly how the economics of our new company worked out every year.

We worked it out so that we could figure out a month's worth of economic rolling with one die roll. Essentially we guarantee the followers and building upkeep and food costs, and the roll tells us how much profit I get from that month or if I have to pony up some cash that month.

I think the secret to making something like this work is to explain to the player that if they want to take the feat, fine that is their choice. I would even let them pick their followers and cohort, with appropriate effort expended on the player's part of course.

And if they want to set up some new business, utilize the resources in the DMG and any campaign setting you are using to figure out exactly what it will take from the PC to get that business off the ground. And without some kind of teleport spell being constantly utilized, the PC would certainly not be able to have the cash on hand at all times.

And even if they do work out a way to have the cash all the time, the weight of gold pieces in large quantities is usually a big deal. Also they need someone they can trust in charge at their business to make sure they are not getting ripped off by their own employees. I leave my cohort back at the keep to run things when I am off adventuring, unless we think we are gonna need the extra muscle.

Kalrik
2010-08-05, 08:45 PM
Wow, lots of responses. Some background, to clear up a little. The PC's liberated a mountain stronghold that was once a great wyrm red dragon's lair. This dragon fancied himself a god and built a massive city under his lair. Long ago, the dragon died and his stronghold was overrun with mountain dwelling lizardfolk.

The party encountered a small band of dwarves trying to eek out a living in the mountains, but were being plagued by the very creatures that dwelled in this mountain stronghold. Clever, and charismatic, sorceress decieds that she wants to help the dwarves by bringing them in and using their skills.

She was reading feats and was looking at leadership for multiple reasons. The income was a big part, as she is trying to amass a large hoard in emulation of her draconic bloodline. She is interested in establishing trade routes and facilitating cross cultural trade, since in my current world trade is limited. She can do all of this with some good, old fassioned, roll play, however, she would have to share with the party, and her party is full of greedy jerks. She argued that using a feat would allow her to be the only party member earning money and renown from her efforts. The cohort would be the interm manager while she was away adventuring...an NPC she is engaged to be wedded to.

Urpriest
2010-08-05, 08:52 PM
If that's what's being done then by all means go for it...though you might instead look at the business rules in DMG II, since they could also simulate the same concept, and will do so in more detail.

Kalrik
2010-08-05, 09:01 PM
I'll have to look. Thanks.

I don't want things to be unbalanced between the characters. The past two levels, they have seen no tangable material rewards. They were fighting beefed up animals, vermin, and magical beasts in the wilds. This is their first real reward and everyone is amped up over the loot.

ericgrau
2010-08-05, 09:17 PM
I would imagine the followers would keep the money for themselves, or only give a portion to their leader in exchange for protection or guidance or something (dare I say "leadership"?). They're followers not slaves.

FelixG
2010-08-05, 09:20 PM
Do NOT look at the business rules in the DMG II, they are horrible and the person who made them obviously didnt do any sort of math in school lol

Seriously its like they gave a monkey a calculator and a pencil and published what it came up with

Grumman
2010-08-05, 09:31 PM
I would imagine the followers would keep the money for themselves, or only give a portion to their leader in exchange for protection or guidance or something (dare I say "leadership"?). They're followers not slaves.
No, they're followers, not henchmen. This means that they have enough loyalty to the PC that they're happy with just food and board as long as they're helping the PC in a relatively safe endeavour.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-08-05, 10:59 PM
No, they're followers, not henchmen. This means that they have enough loyalty to the PC that they're happy with just food and board as long as they're helping the PC in a relatively safe endeavour.

So their loyal slaves? which is basically what you described. Or cultist maybe.

FelixG
2010-08-05, 11:40 PM
So their loyal slaves? which is basically what you described. Or cultist maybe.

Thats pretty much what they are.

Hirax
2010-08-05, 11:45 PM
They could use quite a bit of work, but the rules in the DMG2 could be used as a starting point for this. After giving them another look the biggest problems are with setting up the business (notably the hideous money borrowing system if you want a loan for startup costs). The profit check system is ok, but could use a bit of work too. It's also helpful in that another chapter provides provisions for NPC specialists (which can be craftsmen). Perhaps you could make it so that some of your higher level henchmen count as business owners for the purposes the profit check (call them managers rather than owners), and the lower level henchmen are their handymen and specialists. The convenient thing about these rules is that they factor in wages, taxes, maintenance, material costs, and all the other overhead necessary for business operation, so it'd be easy to determine how much the PC got from their businesses via the result of the profit check.

Protip: for more leadership goodness take the might makes right feat from Races of Faerun. You add your strength modifier to your leadership score on top of your charisma modifier. That's how I interpret it, at least.

Grumman
2010-08-05, 11:47 PM
So their loyal slaves? which is basically what you described. Or cultist maybe.
They're not slaves if they're doing it by choice. Calling them cultists is similarly misleading, since it implies that they don't know the true nature of the relationship. For your average adventurer, the followers could be more accurately compared with volunteers working for a charity.

Tar Palantir
2010-08-05, 11:53 PM
My two coppers is this: whenever I've seen Leadership or its derivatives used, the 1st level followers were used as a way to check for traps when the rogue didn't show. By comparison, this is a significant improvement. :smallwink:

Seriously, this doesn't seem like a huge deal. The business should work decently most of the time, better if the player spends more time RPing it and making things more efficient, and every once in a while you can use it as an adventure hook. What's to complain about?

Hawriel
2010-08-06, 12:01 AM
Im sure you will piss off the local guild and start a war, legal, economic, and violent. The way I see the OP doing this is by forming a trade guild. Like masons, cartwrites, blacksmiths, tailors or what ever.

This would not happen over night. You cant just take the leadership feat and have 20+ peaple knock on your door the next morning. I would expect that you would have to do the RP leg work to set this up. You will also need some kind of permenant base of operations. Most likly in a city along good trade roads and rivers. Then face the consiquences of your idea.

Only a 23 leader ship score eh? Heh thats small time. I had my score past 30 with a CHA of 16. :smallcool:. Of corse I played that character for almost 15 years, with all the great deeds, strongholds and marring a princess that intales. :smallbiggrin:

Kalrik
2010-08-06, 02:09 AM
This is indeed a rp intensive situation. She has already approached a young adult silver dragon and asked him to be a steward for the community her followers would live in,(in this world, at the moment, dragons only live to adulthood, nobody knows exactly why). In return, he has access to an arcane library that has been sealed away for thousands of years.

I agree that one will not get their full amount of NPC minions or a cohort until a significant amount of work has been put in. She is looking to make a huge enemy of the largest guild in her home city by cutting them out of a lucrative trade agreement with the elven nation...a tension i fully intend to exploit.

Her leadership score is based on level and charisma alone with +2 for base of opperation and a -1 for moves around a lot.

Kaww
2010-08-06, 02:13 AM
3) And if a player does blow a feat on this, then they would feel 'robbed' if it didn't do exactly what they wanted it to achieve and work like a magic money machine. And I don't want that, because running a business isn't going to go exactly as they plan it, and I want to be able to use it for plot hooks, and for it to fail miserably if not thought about. If the player had sunk a feat into it, they would be enormously upset if - 6 game months and several thousand gp down the line - all they had to show for it was a burned-out warehouse, a picket-line of workers, and an irate merchant's, stevedor's and thief's guild gunning for them.

Tl;dr: This is the worst idea since affiliations. Feats should not replace roleplaying and thought. GMs should use stuff like this for plot.

3) It is your job to explain to him how it works. What it will do. And how much commitment it requires. If he still wants it he should have it. It is not game breaker and it may be a source of plot or rails.

I agree that this game is about thinking, rollplay and dice. Better thinkers still might not be better players. I know a player that always has poor rolls with good ideas and the other way around...

Lord Vukodlak
2010-08-06, 01:48 PM
They're not slaves if they're doing it by choice. Calling them cultists is similarly misleading, since it implies that they don't know the true nature of the relationship. For your average adventurer, the followers could be more accurately compared with volunteers working for a charity.

You still basically describes slaves they provided their skill and labor, giving you money and in return you provide room and board. Sounds similar to a slave or a cultists with the PC as the leader.