DM screwing me with Thrallherd cohort, fair game or not?

[Ansem]

So long story short, leadership grants you a cohort, which according to DMG:

A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class,
and alignment. The cohort’s alignment may not be opposed to the
leader’s alignment on either the law-vs.-chaos or good-vs.-evil axis,
and the leader takes a Leadership penalty if he recruits a cohort of
an alignment different from his own. The DM determines the
details of the cohort.
Meaning, I won't end up with a bloody Fighter Gnome if I wanted the Dwarven Cleric.
Now my DM says because I take Thrallherd and the description states the following:

They do not appear because they admire the character and want to serve her, but because a hidden psychic resonance connects the thrallherd and her servants.
Yet it also states in my defence:

A thrallherd who has just entered the class sends out a subtle psychic call for servants, and that call is answered. Essentially, the character gains something akin to the Leadership feat, but with some important differences.
Where nowhere is stated that Cohorts/Followers work differently other than that, he still says I have no control whatsoever over whom I attract, which for followers okay.... but cohort seems a bit iffy.

Now I don't have a douchbag DM, he's just quite strict to the rules and in certain cases doesn't get them right.
So unless he is correct that his point of view is RAW I'll submit, but I sincerely doubt that's the way it is.
Thanks in advance.

[Jlerpy]

None of the differences Thrallherd mentions relate to the choice process.

[Ansem]

None of the differences Thrallherd mentions relate to the choice process.

So you say I have a choice of the cohort I get.

[Malimar]

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

I read this to mean: you can ask for a certain kind of cohort/thrall, but the DM is not required to give it to you.

[Fax Celestis]

Nope. Thrallherd cohort's language implies that you can say what you want, but the DM tells you what you get.

[OldTrees1]

There are more potential cohorts (has a LA) than there are potential thralls (psychic resonance with PC).

Having the DM give you 1 candidates for a thrall at a time is perfect reasonable if the DM would have offered 3 candidates for a cohort at a time.

[Crake]

Nope. Thrallherd cohort's language implies that you can say what you want, but the DM tells you what you get.

That said, depending on how you feel about it, you can just keep murdering your thrall until you attract one that you like, since thrallherd doesn't get any leadership penalties from dead cohorts. All the better if you're doing it as an illithid savant.

[Ansem]

And I can reject/dismiss this or not?
Plus is there a penalty for a cohort dying (XP penalty or whatever?)

[SassyQuatch]

A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class,
and alignment. The cohort’s alignment may not be opposed to the
leader’s alignment on either the law-vs.-chaos or good-vs.-evil axis,
and the leader takes a Leadership penalty if he recruits a cohort of
an alignment different from his own. The DM determines the
details of the cohort.
Seems very straightforward to me. You can try. You can also fail. What is constant is that the DM has the final say on what you get.

[GreenETC]

Of course, you can just do the whole killing them over and over until you get the kind you want, as they just keep coming. Or just move somewhere else, since it should be something from around the area, since it's a bit ridiculous if you start getting Gnome Fighters in the middle of the ocean or something.

From a realistic standpoint, talk tot he DM about the kind of Cohort he'll let you have that is relatively okay.

[OldTrees1]

I do not think there are rules for dismissing thralls. However there is no penalty for killing thralls/believers (unlike cohorts/followers)

[Phelix-Mu]

I always handle cohort recruitment like a job interview process. A few steps.

1.) Consider the public reputation the player with the cohort has. Obviously important.

2.) Ask the player the general kind of cohort they are looking for (melee, caster, crafter, healbot). Player input is key; this is a perk for the player's character, and a useless/unwanted perk is not a perk.

3.) Make up a handful of hopeful applicants for the cohort position. They show up over some days/weeks/months of downtime and make their identity and skillset known to the character seeking a cohort.

4.) The player gets to choose which of the hopeful cohorts actually gets the job.

I think it gives a nice balance between "mail order cohort to player specs" and "DM gives you x or nothing."

Just my two cents. It's pretty clear that the RAW says that it's not entirely in the hands of the player (as if that needs reinforcing...the feat is in the DMG, and is available only at DM discretion).

EDIT: Spamkilling cohorts/thralls until you get one you like is generally just bad form. In addition to near instant alignment change (you killed someone that liked you because they didn't know how to use wands or w/e), it's going to take a while for that scenario to play out. I don't recall there being anything about the rate they show up, but I think the whole process takes time to repeat ad infinitum. There isn't just an endless line of them at your door.

Endlessly rejecting them also takes time, but is marginally more likely to end with a successful match.

[Fax Celestis]

Phelix I feel like that's more appropriate for Leadership, not for a Thrallherd, which is more of a low-grade mental control or weak-minded fanatics.

[Phelix-Mu]

Phelix I feel like that's more appropriate for Leadership, not for a Thrallherd, which is more of a low-grade mental control or weak-minded fanatics.

But, mechanically, aside from the no downside to losing the thrall, doesn't a thrall actually work like a cohort? I'd probably leave out the interview step for the thrall, but still out-of-game present the player with a couple choices that I, as DM, had designed. Seems a superior option to chain thrall murdering or letting the player get exactly what they want right out of the gate (which goes against the intent of the ability).

[Emperor Tippy]

You just kill your Thrallherd cohort until you get the one that you want. Or one close enough that you can make it into what you want with a bit of mind, body, and soul rape. Although soul rape can get quite expensive.

[Ansem]

You just kill your Thrallherd cohort until you get the one that you want. Or one close enough that you can make it into what you want with a bit of mind, body, and soul rape. Although soul rape can get quite expensive.

Considering if I could just kidnap what I want, slaughter the last cohort and keep the guy tied to a chair in my bedroom until it worships me and keep doing that until I'm happy :D.

[Phelix-Mu]

You just kill your Thrallherd cohort until you get the one that you want. Or one close enough that you can make it into what you want with a bit of mind, body, and soul rape. Although soul rape can get quite expensive.


Considering if I could just kidnap what I want, slaughter the last cohort and keep the guy tied to a chair in my bedroom until it worships me and keep doing that until I'm happy :D.

Aside from the obvious implications, I find that time here is still unpredictable. Does the Thrallherd lay out a replacement rate for the thrall? Cause the telepathy-dar that is sending out the ping that the thralls are responding to has to travel further and further each time....

EDIT: Found it. It's one thrall per 24 hours...but this could still take an arbitrarily long time, and is in the DM's hands. I don't see a way to really remove control of the results from the DM.

Mind rape is another issue entirely.

[Emperor Tippy]

Aside from the obvious implications, I find that time here is still unpredictable. Does the Thrallherd lay out a replacement rate for the thrall? Cause the telepathy-dar that is sending out the ping that the thralls are responding to has to travel further and further each time....

Replaced within 24 hours per the RAW for the Thrallherd (Ex) ability.

[SassyQuatch]

Considering if I could just kidnap what I want, slaughter the last cohort and keep the guy tied to a chair in my bedroom until it worships me and keep doing that until I'm happy :D.



So unless he is correct that his point of view is RAW I'll submit, but I sincerely doubt that's the way it is.

So... the DM is indeed right, but instead of conceding like you said you would you are instead thinking about being an ass about it.

Classy. :smallyuk:

[Yawgmoth]

I think people are missing a very important word here: Details. the DM determines the details of the cohort. This would imply that the player determines the broad, general parts of the cohort (e.g. alignment, race, and class, perhaps specialization in the case of wizard) and the DM picks the feats, skills, spell selection, gear, etc. At the very least, I would think that the player should be allowed by RAW to say "I want someone tricked out for healing" or "I want a shapeshifter" or whatever and get the functionality desired.

[Ruethgar]

Get Lucid Dreaming and dream a cohort into reality for yourself.

[ryu]

Get Lucid Dreaming and dream a cohort into reality for yourself.

Just be careful that it doesn't whine too much, and isn't obsessed with what is essentially underwater soccer. That SO well last time.

[Jlerpy]

Something I've never got: the penalty for attracting a cohort of a different alignment. Why is that something I'd want to do?

[Malimar]

Something I've never got: the penalty for attracting a cohort of a different alignment. Why is that something I'd want to do?

Maybe you want a bard cohort to buff your paladin.

[Boci]

Something I've never got: the penalty for attracting a cohort of a different alignment. Why is that something I'd want to do?

An evil character wanting someone who won't ping on detect evil. A lawful character acknowledging the values of chaotics ability to adapt, or a chaotic wanting someone to discipline their soldiers?

[Phelix-Mu]

Something I've never got: the penalty for attracting a cohort of a different alignment. Why is that something I'd want to do?

Well, thematically, good people of different alignments often cooperate against the forces of evil, putting aside differences to face a common enemy and all. The same pragmatism can actually also be noted for many neutral types.

But, unless the player is specifically wanting to recruit from an alignment restricted class restricted to different alignments than the leader character, then it really does not seem necessary to specify "I want a Fighter that isn't the same alignment as me." I think the penalty is more included for completeness, in the odd event that some situation like that crops up, not because they thought it would be a regular event.

[Jlerpy]

Maybe you want a bard cohort to buff your paladin.

Ah, that'd be it. Cool.

[Phelix-Mu]

An evil character wanting someone who won't ping on detect evil. A lawful character acknowledging the values of chaotics ability to adapt, or a chaotic wanting someone to discipline their soldiers?

Ah, there are some good mechanical reasons, I see. Thanks, hadn't thought of it being a countermeasure against detect alignment stuff. Can't imagine why, as that is obviously a big concern of evil masterminds; the non-evil smokescreen cohort. So obvious!

[unseenmage]

The book Power of Faerun has some guidelines for attracting specific Cohorts. All based on how affiliated you are with certain organizations or not.

You could try sharing those with your DM and come to some sort of compromise.

Other than that just kill them over and over and over until you get the one you want. That's one of the hilarious things Thrallherd is good for.

Or Programmed Amnesia + the Retraining Rules from DMG2 PH2. That works too.

[Phelix-Mu]

Or Programmed Amnesia + the Retraining Rules from DMG2. That works too.

Are there more retraining rules in DMG2? I thought they were in PHB2...maybe I've missed some.

[unseenmage]

Are there more retraining rules in DMG2? I thought they were in PHB2...maybe I've missed some.

No you're probably right, I likely just got the two confused.
Scratch that, now I think about it I'm sure I got the two confused.

I have been wrong on the internet. Thanks for catching it Phelix-Mu. (No seriously, not being sarcastic. My bad.)

[Phelix-Mu]

Personally, not very familiar with DMG2, so I thought it worth clarifying. Always surprised by the gems from that book that others drag up from that book, but I never saw fit to buy it (and reading .pdfs cover-to-cover never works for me).

To the thrall issue, I'd try to work out something amicable with the DM. If the DM allowed it in the first place, that should suggest some willingness to negotiate the terms of the implied power level. As usual, it's best to work these disputes out out-of-game, as competition with the DM, or between players, in-game is usually detrimental to the table dynamic.

[Flickerdart]

This thread makes me wonder about how an NPC Thrallherd might try and game the system...a vast, sprawling complex of powerful beings held captive, and every day the Thrallherd makes the rounds to see which creature has bent to his will this time, and what it's good for. If it doesn't measure up, it goes in the bin, and the process repeats.

[Thrudd]

I always thought part of the fun of getting cohorts and followers was the random aspect of what type of characters show up. The DM should have a table of possible race/class combinations, adjust for the region/setting you are in and population levels, and roll to see what is available when you are looking for a cohort. If you go looking for a character of a particular race and class, you might find what you want, but they would not necessarily become a cohort. Maybe they'd join your group as an NPC if you made it worth their while and with some good diplomacy and roleplaying. But a cohort is someone who seeks you out because of your fame and reputation, you can't control what sort of person that is going to be. Likewise with a thrall...they are random people who are drawn to you by psychic power. You should have no choice about who or what shows up, ideally the DM will randomly determine it. Then the DM would not be screwing you, only the dice. Which is what D&D is all about, isn't it? :smallwink:

[Jlerpy]

I always thought part of the fun of getting cohorts and followers was the random aspect of what type of characters show up.

No, that's part of the fun of just hiring people. Cohorts and followers are, in a strong sense, part of your character. You don't select your Feats randomly, why would you select your cohorts that way? The fine details are up to the DM, so that you're not building abusive combinations, but to me the "try to attract..." clause is to prevent you from picking things that the DM rules just don't exist.

[Der_DWSage]

With Jlerpy's comment, I'm just thinking of a 20th level Thrallherd who attracts a 19th level Thrallherd who attracts an 18th level Thrallherd...

And this line of silliness continues until the last one is just a Commoner named Bob. He cooks some awesome chicken, though. 8 ranks in Profession(Gourmet Chef) will do that.

[Thrudd]

No, that's part of the fun of just hiring people. Cohorts and followers are, in a strong sense, part of your character. You don't select your Feats randomly, why would you select your cohorts that way? The fine details are up to the DM, so that you're not building abusive combinations, but to me the "try to attract..." clause is to prevent you from picking things that the DM rules just don't exist.

That's just how I'd do it. Your ability scores are part of your character, too, and those are all random (at least when I play). The rules leave it entirely up to the DM. The wording of the leadership feat does say you get to put out your "wish list" for what race and class and alignment you want. So I'd say, sure, tell me what you're hoping for, and we'll roll on a chart to see if that is available. Whether the race you want is available will depend somewhat on your own race. If you are a Dwarf, there is a better chance any potential cohorts are also Dwarves. A caveat would be if you had actually met an NPC prior, and want to make them into a cohort. If they already know your character and are on good terms and otherwise meet all the requirements, I would say they most likely can become a cohort.
I would ask the DM the method he will use to determine your thrall. The only way he is screwing you is if he is being inconsistent, such as giving one character anything they want while arbitrarily making yours random. If he is making decsions based on what he feels are game balance reasons, or setting/verisimilitude reasons, he should tell you and apply the same to anyone. If he uses an unbiased and consistent method to determine followers, it is fair, no matter what the outcome. Thrallherd specifically does not have the same wording as Leadership, it only says it is "something akin to the leadership feat". Nowhere does it say that you can or can't specify the type of thrall, or by what method the DM will decide your thrall. I could see ruling either way. If the nature of the "psychic call" for thralls and believers is not conscious on the part of the thrallherd, then they will all be random races and classes and even alignments. If it is a conscious and willfull calling, then the DM might rule that you do get to decide, or at least have a decent chance at getting a thrall close to what you want. Same with normal leadership and cohorts. If the cohort seeks you out because they heard about your fame and awesomeness, then they should be randomly generated. If the leader has an active search and interview process for cohorts, then there should be a good chance of getting something close to what the player wants. Which way this works is up to the DM entirely.

Here's what I'd do:
When someone gains leadership, or thrallherd, they begin attracting cohorts/thralls and followers. Whenever the player is in a civilized area, I will roll on a chart to determine who approaches the player requesting to follow them. The number of applicants will depend on the population density of the region, and their race and class will be weighted according to demographics of the region and the race and class of the PC. A large city may present as many as one applicant appearing every day spent there to a max of 12 drawn from a diverse pool of races and classes. A small village might have none or one maximum with probably only one race available. You can always turn down any petitioner if they don't meet your standards. If you really want a Dwarven cleric as a cohort, your best bet would be to go to a Dwarven settlement that has a temple and spend some time there. Then you are pretty much guaranteed to get a Dwarf, and a cleric will definately be on the list of possibilities. There will need to be some period of time before a new set of applicants will be available at any given settlement, maybe a year of in-game time before more rolls will be made.
Followers/believers would have a separate chart for determining their class and race, and more of them will potentially show up at any given settlement.

[icefractal]

If he allows class selection for normal cohorts (which is technically not required, but has been the de-facto rule for every game I've been in), then he should allow it for Thrallherds as well. Thrallherd's main schtick is being Mr. Minions; being worse at cohort-having than a character with normal Leadership doesn't fit.

[Jlerpy]

If he allows class selection for normal cohorts (which is technically not required, but has been the de-facto rule for every game I've been in), then he should allow it for Thrallherds as well. Thrallherd's main schtick is being Mr. Minions; being worse at cohort-having than a character with normal Leadership doesn't fit.

Exactly. It says it's like Leadership, but with some particular changes. Then it runs through those changes. One must surely assume that it is otherwise like Leadership.

[lord_khaine]

For that matter, attempting to kill your Thrall is kinda stupid as you run the risk of it either escaping, or killing you back.
Remember that it doesnt spell out anywhere that you have more control over your Thrall, than a regular person has over his cohort.

That means a hostile Thrall can be quite the nuesance, either becomming a hostile NPC or blocking up your "Thrall slot" while he hides somewhere out in the wilderness.

[Mnemnosyne]

All you need is an NPC of the right base class, and everything else can be solved with psychic reformation.

If the DM isn't even giving you an NPC of the class you want, then you have good reason to complain. At that point I would simply say to the DM that if he didn't want me to take this class, he should have said so up front.

[Wraith]

For that matter, attempting to kill your Thrall is kinda stupid as you run the risk of it either escaping, or killing you back.
Remember that it doesnt spell out anywhere that you have more control over your Thrall, than a regular person has over his cohort.

Even worse, is considering what happens if you DO succeed in killing your Thrall.

In my experience, there is an infinite number of Gnome Fighters in the world, each one more nerve-gratingly, ear worming, soul destroyingly irritating than the last..... :smalleek:

[Flickerdart]

Even worse, is considering what happens if you DO succeed in killing your Thrall.

In my experience, there is an infinite number of Gnome Fighters in the world, each one more nerve-gratingly, ear worming, soul destroyingly irritating than the last..... :smalleek:
Step 1: Enact Gnome Fighter genocide.
Step 2: Kill thrall.
Step 3: Wait.

Quite frankly, most evil minions we see in media are horribly incompetent, so it isn't entirely narratively inappropriate for an overlord to be attracting followers he doesn't actually want.

[Keneth]

You just kill your Thrallherd cohort until you get the one that you want.

Do you have any idea how many brothers and cousins that gnome fighter has? :smallbiggrin:

[Raven777]

Remember : there ain't no cohort problem that cannot be fixed through highly invasive brain surgery (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm).

[Phelix-Mu]

I'd be interested to hear how DMs among you role play thralls. While I seem to get the feeling the thrall is loyal (as per a normal cohort, plus not affected by the DMG tables of modifiers), just how far does this loyalty go? If you took a thrall and rejiggered their life and memories/abilities or whatever, and at some point the thrall found out, does the thrall just shrug and go with it?

While I'm not suggesting that I would just screw the player over by having the thrall automatically go loco after being mindraped/psychic reformed, I would want some kind of realistic role playing context (assuming, again, that the thrall realized that they had been drastically altered). Obviously, a smart and persuasive character could probably talk a thrall into a psychic reformation, but almost no one volunteers for a mind rape.

This would make for an interesting role play dynamic, actually. Psychically engineered thrall is unaware of mind rape, but gradually discovers what's going on. Hmm. I wonder if I could work out a similar way to put a pc in the position of the thrall....(with the player's permission, of course, all as a role play conceit for starting a campaign with).

[sideswipe]

to be honest with leadership/thrallherd it says under leadership that you speak to your dm before hand and agree something. if you took it without talking to him first then he gives you your cohort without consulting you first. which is completely fair. if you had talked to him and arranged a cohort for you to attract/ thrall and he did not provide, its unfair. if before you took it he said that he would decide what you got without your input then take a different feat or class.

its simple communication

[Brookshw]

Do you have any idea how many brothers and cousins that gnome fighter has? :smallbiggrin:

Yes, they're called my "to do" list :smalltongue:

[nobodez]

And this is why I and the others I game with use the Living Greyhawk method of cohort creation: it's part of your character, you build it.

Problem solved.

As for your problem, really all you need is the right powers, and access to a 7th level Druid with spells from the Spell Compendium. Psionic reformation/character rebuilding takes care of the levels, while Last Breath takes care of the race. A thinaun (CW) dagger takes care of keeping the thrall's soul handy.

[Fax Celestis]

I'd be interested to hear how DMs among you role play thralls. While I seem to get the feeling the thrall is loyal (as per a normal cohort, plus not affected by the DMG tables of modifiers), just how far does this loyalty go? If you took a thrall and rejiggered their life and memories/abilities or whatever, and at some point the thrall found out, does the thrall just shrug and go with it?

While I'm not suggesting that I would just screw the player over by having the thrall automatically go loco after being mindraped/psychic reformed, I would want some kind of realistic role playing context (assuming, again, that the thrall realized that they had been drastically altered). Obviously, a smart and persuasive character could probably talk a thrall into a psychic reformation, but almost no one volunteers for a mind rape.

This would make for an interesting role play dynamic, actually. Psychically engineered thrall is unaware of mind rape, but gradually discovers what's going on. Hmm. I wonder if I could work out a similar way to put a pc in the position of the thrall....(with the player's permission, of course, all as a role play conceit for starting a campaign with).

http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=467 Another Gaming Comic has a good take on how Thrallherds actually work.

[Zweisteine]

Something I've never got: the penalty for attracting a cohort of a different alignment. Why is that something I'd want to do?
That is two separate statements. As others have stated, you might want a cohort who is good at things you aren't. The penalty exists because people unlike you wouldn't want to be your cohort as much (not so relevant for thrallherds, though).


Psionic reformation/character rebuilding takes care of the levels.
Actually, Psychic Reformation does not allow for changing classes, only skills, feats, powers known, and, by extension, spells known (but not spells in a spellbook, possibly).


For that matter, attempting to kill your Thrall is kinda stupid as you run the risk of it either escaping, or killing you back.
Remember that it doesnt spell out anywhere that you have more control over your Thrall, than a regular person has over his cohort.

That means a hostile Thrall can be quite the nuesance, either becomming a hostile NPC or blocking up your "Thrall slot" while he hides somewhere out in the wilderness.
It is generally assumed (but not explicitly stated, so this DM could interpret it differently), that the Thrall are the loyal servants of the Thrallherd, and will not disobey any order. If the DM rules differently, telling them to submit to one spell to make them more powerful (bluff check), and then using Mindrape to remake them as your mindless followers would change that.



By the rules as written, the DM gets the final say in the details of the Thrall. However, the player should get some say. If I were a strict DM, I might give them the race/class they want (or something similar), but build the detailed stats myself.

If your character is evil, you can just kill the thrall and loot the body, which will eventually force your DM to give you the Thrall you want, but you would probably draw a lot of attention, and get somebody powerful chasing after you. (You wanted a wizard thrall? Here you go; good luck escaping his 20th level master!)

If your character is good, you might be able to kill them until you get something you like, then use the loot to pay for all the dead thralls to be True Resurrected. If that is still evil, you can get their permission, convincing them by telling them that following you will be dangerous, and that they could be more powerful out of your service (which is true).

This is how I imagine the fluff behind the Thrallherd's signature ability:
You send out a psychic call, which searches a large area, and finds any potential thralls within that area. It then averages (not with any sort of actual math, though) the distances, and the willpower (strength of personality, not Will save).

If you were not focusing on finding any type of character, the call will be answered by a person with a low to average will and close distance.
If you were focusing on finding something in particular, similarity to your target will be factored in to the thrall-finding "algorithm," and the best choice will become your Thrall.

Personally, I might say that by not focusing on anything specific (beyond finding a good thrall), the thrall you get, while random, would be generally more powerful (i.e. more optimized). If you tried for a specific type, you'll get something like it, but less powerful.

[Angelalex242]

When I get cohorts in most games, I essentially get to mail order them, if the GM allows Leadership at all.

Mail Order cohorts are a Lazy GM's friend, as then he needn't bother statting one up.

[nobodez]

Actually, Psychic Reformation does not allow for changing classes, only skills, feats, powers known, and, by extension, spells known (but not spells in a spellbook, possibly).

That's why I said "/character rebuilding", which actually can change levels.

[tricktroller]

You know if I was a DM and I gave you your thrallherd and you didn't like it so you killed it, I would probably make your next one and every one after that a kobold monk. Blorb the kobold monk and his 27 billion cousins who are kobold monks are your only choices.

[Flickerdart]

You know if I was a DM and I gave you your thrallherd and you didn't like it so you killed it, I would probably make your next one and every one after that a kobold monk. Blorb the kobold monk and his 27 billion cousins who are kobold monks are your only choices.
I'm pretty sure that evil overlords killing subjects that disappoint them are such an established trope that it's practically cliche.

[Boci]

You know if I was a DM and I gave you your thrallherd and you didn't like it so you killed it, I would probably make your next one and every one after that a kobold monk. Blorb the kobold monk and his 27 billion cousins who are kobold monks are your only choices.

Maybe that's how Dark Sun began...

[nedz]

You send out a psychic call, which searches a large area, and finds any potential thralls within that area. It then averages (not with any sort of actual math, though) the distances, and the willpower (strength of personality, not Will save).

If you were not focusing on finding any type of character, the call will be answered by a person with a low to average will and close distance.
If you were focusing on finding something in particular, similarity to your target will be factored in to the thrall-finding "algorithm," and the best choice will become your Thrall.

Personally, I might say that by not focusing on anything specific (beyond finding a good thrall), the thrall you get, while random, would be generally more powerful (i.e. more optimized). If you tried for a specific type, you'll get something like it, but less powerful.

This kind of implies that high will save thralls are less likely to turn up since they are more resistant.

[ryu]

This kind of implies that high will save thralls are less likely to turn up since they are more resistant.

Did you notice it specifically saying will save isn't the relevant thing?

[Phelix-Mu]

They could have been a little better explaining the role play implication of the thrall. Sure, it's loyal and responds to psychic resonance (whatever that is) and whatnot, but does that actually mean that otherwise it's exactly like a cohort? Is it more brainwashable/pliable, or does someone lacking access to the apparently ubiquitous mindrape pretty much have to just treat their thrall well?

...or murder it.

[LordBlades]

You know if I was a DM and I gave you your thrallherd and you didn't like it so you killed it, I would probably make your next one and every one after that a kobold monk. Blorb the kobold monk and his 27 billion cousins who are kobold monks are your only choices.

Would you do the same to PCs that sell the loot you're giving them instead of using it?

Because how dare a PC actually try to get what he wants instead of be happy with what he is given, right?

[tricktroller]

Well if it was an intelligent magic item that I had spent a bunch of time making? Yeah, matter of fact hell yeah, every piece of loot you get form then on disappears as the intelligent sword uses it to teleport back to you. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. If it isn't exactly what you want, tough cookies. I don't agree with the "Let players have whatever the hell they want" mentality.

[Flickerdart]

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
It's not a gift horse, it's a prestige class. Levels are a very valuable resource.

[tricktroller]

If I can give you anything, and you take a potentially abusable class like thrallherd then getting something pretty damn good vs exactly what you want is about as good as you are going to get, especially if what you want is broken.

[tricktroller]

say for instance taking thrallherd thralls.

[ryu]

If I can give you anything, and you take a potentially abusable class like thrallherd then getting something pretty damn good vs exactly what you want is about as good as you are going to get, especially if what you want is broken.

Never antagonize players. They can crack your world wide open with explicitly clear RAW core only options. Being a jerk tempts them to be a jerk. It never ends well, so don't. That's as much for your own good as theirs.

[Boci]

Never antagonize players. They can crack your world wide open with explicitly clear RAW core only options. Being a jerk tempts them to be a jerk. It never ends well, so don't. That's as much for your own good as theirs.

This just isn't true. I agree the DM shouldn't be a jerk, but the idea that players can break a world with RAW is questionable at best. "Pun-pun, who has become an inevitable charged with maintaining order of the rules shows up and stops you".


If I can give you anything, and you take a potentially abusable class like thrallherd then getting something pretty damn good vs exactly what you want is about as good as you are going to get, especially if what you want is broken.

Those expectations need to be layed out in an OOC discussion, not played out in game through jerk moves.


Well if it was an intelligent magic item that I had spent a bunch of time making? Yeah, matter of fact hell yeah, every piece of loot you get form then on disappears as the intelligent sword uses it to teleport back to you. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. If it isn't exactly what you want, tough cookies. I don't agree with the "Let players have whatever the hell they want" mentality.

Yeah, but neither should the DM. If the players aren't interested in the fluff and mechanics of the intelligent sword you came up with, suck it up. They don't have to wield it because you want them to.

[tricktroller]

"I use this RAW core option to break the game!" -player. "You die." -Me. "But I can't die, I'm immortal." - Player "That's nice, oh look you are dead." -Me.

Its called DM fiat, in this game I am god, small g. I will not antagonize a player, but if you kill something I give you, expect consequences for your actions, the idea that there is an unlimited number of thralls available to you is a bit ridiculous and it does not say such in the PRC. If you kill enough they will stop coming until an appropriate level one can level up to that level which depending on your level could take awhile. Also they might be really far away.

In my opinion, don't try to break the game and I will probably give it to you, try to be a **** and I will respond in kind.

[tricktroller]

Boci, I meant it in the context of an intelligent item that is exactly something your character would want that works well with it but you sell it because you can get a ton of money to buy your +9 poodle spanker. Players are warned in advance of what will happen if they try to break the game and all things must gain approval before being done as far as PRC's feats etc. There are no **** moves here, just ones that are responses to well known consequences of actions.

[Boci]

Boci, I meant it in the context of an intelligent item that is exactly something your character would want that works well with it but you sell it because you can get a ton of money to buy your +9 poodle spanker.

Er no, if my character sells the item then it presumably is not exactly what I want. The player decide what their character wants.


Players are warned in advance of what will happen if they try to break the game and all things must gain approval before being done as far as PRC's feats etc. There are no **** moves here, just ones that are responses to well known consequences of actions.

Except your definition of "breaking the game" is "playing my character the wrong way". Treating your thrall as an item is perfectly viable RP for an evil thrallherd.

[tricktroller]

eh fair enough I suppose Boci, though how mad would you be to find out later that it was the artifact the party had been questing for all along and that the man you had sold it to sold it to a pit fiend in disguise and now you have to go to the 8th layer of hell to retrieve it?

Now that would be a **** move, and it is something I would not do.

[LordBlades]

"I use this RAW core option to break the game!" -player. "You die." -Me. "But I can't die, I'm immortal." - Player "That's nice, oh look you are dead." -Me.

Player 'No I'm not.' and the silliness keeps going. You two can keep acting like three year olds, or have a mature chat about it. One option is likely to yield vastly more productive results than the other. I'll leave it up to you to guess which one.


Its called DM fiat, in this game I am god, small g.
You only have a game as long as you have players. They can always vote with their feet if they think you go to far.

[Boci]

eh fair enough I suppose Boci, though how mad would you be to find out later that it was the artifact the party had been questing for all along and that the man you had sold it to sold it to a pit fiend in disguise and now you have to go to the 8th layer of hell to retrieve it?

Now that would be a **** move, and it is something I would not do.

As you said, its a jerk move and I would be unimpressed. Any DM can recton in plot central details that make past discussions screw over the PCs.

[tricktroller]

Just saying, you cannot kill of your thrall unlimited times before you have no more creatures with psychic resonance. It also states that the Dm gets to pick your thrall for you. I will give you a good thrall that will have just about everything you want as long as it is reasonable. If you want a thrall that you need to do something broken I will not give it to you end of story.

[tricktroller]

You know I have a feeling LordBlades that you like to play min maxed characters that break games from your reaction to my posts. If you don't like the fact that I am not allowing you to wreck a campaign I have spent months working on, then please get your ass up and get out of my house. I can always find more people to play.

[unseenmage]

Player 'No I'm not.' and the silliness keeps going. You two can keep acting like three year olds, or have a mature chat about it. One option is likely to yield vastly more productive results than the other. I'll leave it up to you to guess which one.


You only have a game as long as you have players. They can always vote with their feet if they think you go to far.

This, very much this.
Communication is key in every cooperative human endeavor. Emphasis on cooperative.

Yes the player killing the thralls could be an uncooperative response to an uncooperative DM action of denying that player full freedom in the use of their class ability.

The reality is that compromise beforehand obviates the need for the entire discussion in the first place.

[Boci]

Just saying, you cannot kill of your thrall unlimited times before you have no more creatures with psychic resonance. It also states that the Dm gets to pick your thrall for you. I will give you a good thrall that will have just about everything you want as long as it is reasonable. If you want a thrall that you need to do something broken I will not give it to you end of story.

I don't think a single indevidual can that that much affect on the significant NPC population. And as I said, its valid roleplaying to have your evil thrallherd do that. They know they get a nice shiny toy from appa whenever they break theirs, so breaking it if they don't like it and seeing what they get as a replacement works. You don't have to give them exactly what they want, but sending an endless stream of kobold monks is a jerk move.

[LordBlades]

Just saying, you cannot kill of your thrall unlimited times before you have no more creatures with psychic resonance. It also states that the Dm gets to pick your thrall for you. I will give you a good thrall that will have just about everything you want as long as it is reasonable. If you want a thrall that you need to do something broken I will not give it to you end of story.

Technically it says the DM gets to pick the details

[Flickerdart]

You know I have a feeling LordBlades that you like to play min maxed characters that break games from your reaction to my posts. If you don't like the fact that I am not allowing you to wreck a campaign I have spent months working on, then please get your ass up and get out of my house. I can always find more people to play.
Just because people disagree with you, they like to break games? That sure is some accusation you're slinging.

[tricktroller]

Most likely I would roll up a random npc encounter and use that as your thrallherd if you killed yours off for no reason other than to get a new toy. Eventually though if you keep doing that you might find yourself a thrall to a more powerful thrallherd who finally got his thrallherd thrall. I have no problem with you killing one for in game reasons but just arbitrarily killing it because you want a new one is ridiculous. I am very much interested in playing games base don the spirit of the rule as opposed to the letter of it. Dnd isn't about the rules or the character sheet or the roll of the dice, it is Role playing not roll playing. Play a character not a character sheet.

[tricktroller]

No Flickerdart, its his extremely defensive posts that make me think he likes to play min maxed characters, not just that he disagrees with me.

You and Doci are disagreeing with me and I haven't said as much about you two.

And as far as I am concerned the details is you get to pick the race and the class and I get to fill in all the details past the generic. You want a human wizard, cool, you get a human generalist wizard. You want a human wizard with these specific spells, these exact feats, and these exact items, I might give you 2 out of 3, but it doesn;t make sense that you can just pick so specific an idea out of thin air and then force someone who has done that exact set of things into your service. Suspension of disbelief is important I think.

[Boci]

Most likely I would roll up a random npc encounter and use that as your thrallherd if you killed yours off for no reason other than to get a new toy.

And how would you determine the initial one?


And as far as I am concerned the details is you get to pick the race and the class and I get to fill in all the details past the generic. You want a human wizard, cool, you get a human generalist wizard. You want a human wizard with these specific spells, these exact feats, and these exact items, I might give you 2 out of 3, but it doesn;t make sense that you can just pick so specific an idea out of thin air and then force someone who has done that exact set of things into your service. Suspension of disbelief is important I think.

That's how you generate a character. It means I regard the thrall as just as important as my PC. (Mild amount of tongue in cheek here.)

[tricktroller]

As I said, I would give you soemthing very close to what you want but not exactly. Not everyone is a potential thrall for you, but anyone could potentially be one. I might make it a D1000 roll to see what you get, make a table that could handle something like as low as 1/2 of what you want to exactly what you want. I don't want to gimp someone on their class features but I also don't intend to hand you godhood without a lot of work.

[Boci]

As I said, I would give you soemthing very close to what you want but not exactly. Not everyone is a potential thrall for you, but anyone could potentially be one. I might make it a D1000 roll to see what you get, make a table that could handle something like as low as 1/2 of what you want to exactly what you want. I don't want to gimp someone on their class features but I also don't intend to hand you godhood without a lot of work.

How about saying "You can design every detail of your thrall, try not to make them too powerful".

[tricktroller]

I understand that it is important sometimes to get exactly what you want, but "You can;t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find, you get what you need."

I will endeavor to help make your character cool, but if you don;t have to work on something, and it isn't a challenge, then it isn't rewarding. Over time you can mold your thrall exactly as you want him, but Frankenstein wouldn't have had Igor if he could have had a subservient Einstein.

[tricktroller]

Yeah and if it is too powerful I will give you 2/3s...Isn't that what I have been saying all along?

[Boci]

I understand that it is important sometimes to get exactly what you want, but "You can;t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find, you get what you need."

I will endeavor to help make your character cool, but if you don;t have to work on something, and it isn't a challenge, then it isn't rewarding. Over time you can mold your thrall exactly as you want him, but Frankenstein wouldn't have had Igor if he could have had a subservient Einstein.

I can see an argument both for and against it. The important thing is that this needs to be clarified before it comes online, so during character creation.


Yeah and if it is too powerful I will give you 2/3s...Isn't that what I have been saying all along?

No, you were implying you won't get exactly what you want regardless of power level. Suspension of disbelief and all that.

[LordBlades]

No Flickerdart, its his extremely defensive posts that make me think he likes to play min maxed characters, not just that he disagrees with me.


I just didn't like your 'I'm the DM, and I'll give you whatever I feel like, and you have to be happy with it. If you're not, you'll be punished' tone.

There are plenty other solution to OOG issues (different expectation in regard to power level, or 'breaking the game' as you like to put it are an OOG issue in the end) apart from antagonizing players in game.

Honestly, why would somebody come to a game with the express intention of breaking it (assuming we're talking a sane, normal human being with no prior grudges). You come to a game to play. You break it, there's nothing to play anymore. Simple.

And just for the record, I do like min-maxed characters, but I have yet to play anything that didn't fit the power level agreed upon before starting.

[tricktroller]

bah I meant if you got too ridiculous it wouldn't be exact.

[Raven777]

"I use this RAW core option to break the game!" -player. "You die." -Me. "But I can't die, I'm immortal." - Player "That's nice, oh look you are dead." -Me.

Its called DM fiat, in this game I am god, small g. I will not antagonize a player, but if you kill something I give you, expect consequences for your actions, the idea that there is an unlimited number of thralls available to you is a bit ridiculous and it does not say such in the PRC. If you kill enough they will stop coming until an appropriate level one can level up to that level which depending on your level could take awhile. Also they might be really far away.

In my opinion, don't try to break the game and I will probably give it to you, try to be a **** and I will respond in kind.

You are only a God so long as players stick around your table... >.>

The event in your first paragraph can only devolve in a slap fight of "No I'm not", "Yes you are", "Am not!", "Totally is!". This is why we have RAW. Rule 0 exists so that the DM can arbiter RAW and RAI properly, not to let the DM turn the rulebook upside down. After all, players gather around a table to play D&D, not Joe's Take on D&D. The game is the system. This is what we play.

[Forrestfire]

"I use this RAW core option to break the game!" -player. "You die." -Me. "But I can't die, I'm immortal." - Player "That's nice, oh look you are dead." -Me.

Its called DM fiat, in this game I am god, small g. I will not antagonize a player, but if you kill something I give you, expect consequences for your actions, the idea that there is an unlimited number of thralls available to you is a bit ridiculous and it does not say such in the PRC. If you kill enough they will stop coming until an appropriate level one can level up to that level which depending on your level could take awhile. Also they might be really far away.

In my opinion, don't try to break the game and I will probably give it to you, try to be a **** and I will respond in kind.

That sounds like the sort of attitude borne of mistrust at the table. Maybe find some new players if you've acquired the attitude that the players are always wrong? :smallconfused:

[Raven777]

As for replacing Thralls and Believers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/thrallherd.htm)...


A thrallherd’s first thrall and believers arrive within 24 hours of her entry into this class; likewise, lost thralls and believers are replaced within 24 hours.

The rules mention no diminishing return, no mitigating circumstances. Wether you are in a teeming metropolis or in the middle of the desert, your Thralls show up. Whether they are wise clerics or foolish farmhands, your Thralls show up. Whether you treat them like family or slaughter them on a whim, your Thralls show up. You have no control on exactly what you get, but they do show up within a day. Always.

Rules must be followed. Otherwise we are not playing D&D, we're playing Joe's Take on D&D. Or Bob's. Or John's. Or Liz's. And this gets annoying fast.

[nedz]

Did you notice it specifically saying will save isn't the relevant thing?

No, obviously I didn't.

I saw the will power thing and I assumed that Will save is the normal quantification of will power.

How else could you measure this ?
Wisdom ?
Charisma ?
d20+Mod maybe ?

I was actually thinking about a reversal of the usual device whereby a PC is drawn to an NPC Thrallherd. Definitely not RAW, and maybe a little railroadey, but it might be an amusing encounter.

[ryu]

No, obviously I didn't.

I saw the will power thing and I assumed that Will save is the normal quantification of will power.

How else could you measure this ?
Wisdom ?
Charisma ?
d20+Mod maybe ?

I was actually thinking about a reversal of the usual device whereby a PC is drawn to an NPC Thrallherd. Definitely not RAW, and maybe a little railroadey, but it might be an amusing encounter.

Don't know what the actual mechanism would be, but it mentions DIRECTLY after the first use of the word willpower that that is not equivalent to will save. Therefore high will save is clearly not the demonstrated resistance utility here.

[Angelalex242]

Thus far, I have decided Tricktroller is a GM I would not want, and if stuck with him, I would pick up my dice bag and go home. I've got better things I could be doing with my time. You only live once, and all that.

[OldTrees1]

Thus far, I have discovered that people will miscommunicate to each other and misunderstand each other on the internet.

Whether the same would happen IRL, between the same individuals, remains to be seen.

Now for something completely different...

[Fax Celestis]

They could have been a little better explaining the role play implication of the thrall. Sure, it's loyal and responds to psychic resonance (whatever that is) and whatnot, but does that actually mean that otherwise it's exactly like a cohort? Is it more brainwashable/pliable, or does someone lacking access to the apparently ubiquitous mindrape pretty much have to just treat their thrall well?

...or murder it.

You should read the book instead of just the SRD. It does go into more detail.

[ryu]

Thus far, I have decided Tricktroller is a GM I would not want, and if stuck with him, I would pick up my dice bag and go home. I've got better things I could be doing with my time. You only live once, and all that.

And so you better watch out. You wouldn't want to go outside and be hit by a piano.

[HaikenEdge]

I play (and DM) some pretty optimized groups, and in those games, the player of the thrallherd gets to build their own thralls (optimized within reason, not as powerful as the main PCs [who are the main characters of the story], etc), but they also have to write the character's entire backgrounds and play them in character as well. In my experience, that kind of saves the DM a lot of headache, and lets players decide the relationship the thrallherd has with the thrall; I've had cases where the thrall had a love-hate relationship with the thrallherd, and was constantly talking himself into doing what the thrallherd wanted.

Basically, if you feel like the DM wants to screw you, then you need to talk to the DM and resolve that; D&D is supposed to be DMs with players, not DMs against players, and when it becomes the latter, the games generally don't feel good to be a part of.

[Yawgmoth]

And so you better watch out. You wouldn't want to go outside and be hit by a piano. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

I'd rather walk around a busy construction site in my underpants than be in any game where tricktroller has a say in it, based on his posts. That doesn't mean I'm agoraphobic, it just shows that I have a basic understanding of what kind of games/DMs I find enjoyable; said games do not involve Dickensian "please sir, may I have some more/something different?" horse hockey. I play to have fun, and being told that I don't get control over a major component of my character is not fun for me; ergo, I would not play.

[tricktroller]

Oh no two whole people would not play with me as a DM because they don;t get absolute control over something that says the DM gets to decide on the details? Whatever shall I do? However shall I live? Nay spaketh not, I must away!

Seriously people, if you want to get pissy because I don't let you have exactly what you want because it doesn't make sense to me in the game, then get over it? As the DM I arbitrate what RAI is, and I think that things like leadership/thrallherd are used too often to break games. If you disagree then you obviously have never looked at min/maxing leadership. I think it is completely fair to say hey this is what you find, I'm not gonna be a total **** by giving you a level 10 commoner when you first get it, but don't expect me to give you a focused specialist conjurer with abrupt jaunt either.

[Boci]

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

High tea prices in China drive British expats there made, and they then start throwing pianos out of their private jets?

[ryu]

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

I'd rather walk around a busy construction site in my underpants than be in any game where tricktroller has a say in it, based on his posts. That doesn't mean I'm agoraphobic, it just shows that I have a basic understanding of what kind of games/DMs I find enjoyable; said games do not involve Dickensian "please sir, may I have some more/something different?" horse hockey. I play to have fun, and being told that I don't get control over a major component of my character is not fun for me; ergo, I would not play.

Dude. Reference. I was trying to lighten the mood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Otla5157c

[HaikenEdge]

Oh no two whole people would not play with me as a DM because they don;t get absolute control over something that says the DM gets to decide on the details? Whatever shall I do? However shall I live? Nay spaketh not, I must away!

Seriously people, if you want to get pissy because I don't let you have exactly what you want because it doesn't make sense to me in the game, then get over it? As the DM I arbitrate what RAI is, and I think that things like leadership/thrallherd are used too often to break games. If you disagree then you obviously have never looked at min/maxing leadership. I think it is completely fair to say hey this is what you find, I'm not gonna be a total **** by giving you a level 10 commoner when you first get it, but don't expect me to give you a focused specialist conjurer with abrupt jaunt either.

I think the problem comes down to, are you telling your story, and the players are along for the ride, or are you helping the players tell their characters' stories?

In the case of the former, then yeah, you're free to do what you want if it doesn't fit into your story, because, let's face it, your players simply have bit parts in the story you're telling anyways, so it's not like they matter, although they will most certainly get that feeling.

In the case of the latter, telling your players they can't do something because it doesn't make sense to you impairs on a player's ability to tell their character's story; as long as it makes sense to them, that's all that should matter, as your job as the DM is to help them craft their story.

As for not giving players a commoner or a super-specialized thrall, would you punish your players for killing their way to a better thrall? If so, would it be in the context of the game (player killed their thrall, now somebody is investigating the murder), or are you simply slapping them with the punishment (here, have the same thrall as last time, because that's all you're going to get)? I think that's where the problem is, the fact that it seems you're punishing the players instead of opening up a dialog.

[Forrestfire]

Oh no two whole people would not play with me as a DM because they don;t get absolute control over something that says the DM gets to decide on the details? Whatever shall I do? However shall I live? Nay spaketh not, I must away!

Seriously people, if you want to get pissy because I don't let you have exactly what you want because it doesn't make sense to me in the game, then get over it? As the DM I arbitrate what RAI is, and I think that things like leadership/thrallherd are used too often to break games. If you disagree then you obviously have never looked at min/maxing leadership. I think it is completely fair to say hey this is what you find, I'm not gonna be a total **** by giving you a level 10 commoner when you first get it, but don't expect me to give you a focused specialist conjurer with abrupt jaunt either.

Again, this sounds like an issue with mistrust between the DM and the players. Ideally, the players should have the freedom to choose stuff they want to play without the DM screwing them over, because the goal of the game is to make a story as a group, not to compete.

I believe that, for example, if a focused specialist conjurer with abrupt jaunt is too much power, you talk to them out of character instead of being petty in-game. This is a problem than can be solved by simple discussion instead of lording it over someone by arbitrarily changing the rules.

You other example of an intelligent item you built being sold by a player is also strange. If they have a talking sword they don't like, what is stopping them from selling it or leaving it in a stone somewhere? Penalizing future treasure gains because they took a different direction than you wanted is extremely petty.

Maybe I have a different opinion on the role of the DM, but the best DMs work with the players, not against them. If you can't trust your players to behave balance-wise, why are you even playing with them?


(In any case, given a 1/day supply of 27 billion kobold monks, I'm sure that most players could find something useful to do with them. Even if it's hooking them up to a pain extractor, evil overlord style.)

[nobodez]

tricktroller, while I understand where you're coming from, I don't agree with your methods.

As I said, I prefer the Living Greyhawk method of Cohort/Thrallherd creation, and everyone in my group does as well (perhaps because we all became gaming buddies through Living Greyhawk). It works for us, and that's what matters. Yes, Leadership is the most powerful feat in the game, bar none (IMHO), and a single level of Thrallherd gives something just slightly better than it. As a GM, I have better things to do than build a cohort that's just going to be played, advanced, and equipped by the player anyway. As long as the cohort doesn't break the rules of the campaign, doesn't overshadow the other PCs, and doesn't distract the player too much (once had a player at the table with a cohort, the cohort's animal companion, and a shadow in addition to the shadow dancer itself), I'm perfectly fine with letting the player take care of everything else.

[Eldest]

Oh no two whole people would not play with me as a DM because they don;t get absolute control over something that says the DM gets to decide on the details? Whatever shall I do? However shall I live? Nay spaketh not, I must away!

Seriously people, if you want to get pissy because I don't let you have exactly what you want because it doesn't make sense to me in the game, then get over it? As the DM I arbitrate what RAI is, and I think that things like leadership/thrallherd are used too often to break games. If you disagree then you obviously have never looked at min/maxing leadership. I think it is completely fair to say hey this is what you find, I'm not gonna be a total **** by giving you a level 10 commoner when you first get it, but don't expect me to give you a focused specialist conjurer with abrupt jaunt either.

Nah, (for me) it's not that. It's the "absolute" idea. That you don't seem to want to work with the player. The acusations of people being highly defensive and generalized dismissing of people's opinions as them being "pissy" doesn't help either.

[LordBlades]

Regarding tricktroller's position on the issue:

I completely agree that DM is well in his rights to (and should) put his foo down and not allow things that are stronger than the power level he's comfortable with.

What I don't agree is your chosen method to solve this issue, namely build a toned-down version of what the player wants, as opposed to talking to the player, and ask him to request something less powerful. You are not your player and unless you have mind reading capabilities you run the risk of not preserving the stuff your player absolutely wants from his thrall in the process of toning down his build.

Thrallherd requires a sizable investment to get into (a situational feat, the required 13 Wis and the loss of a manifester level). For that, you get a thrall. If the player doesn't feel the thrall he gets is worth the investment, he will be unhappy. Not necessarily in the 'DM why don't you give me what I want' (a mature player can understand 'this is more power than I want in this game' argument) way, but in the 'if I had known this is the best I can get for a thrall, I would not have bothered with thrallherd'.

[tricktroller]

I think the problem comes down to, are you telling your story, and the players are along for the ride, or are you helping the players tell their characters' stories?


Neither of these is exactly right. I am narrating a story, i.e., I have a storyline in mind with plot twists and turns etc. The characters are in the story I am narrating but they are playing their own roles and get to choose pretty much exactly what they want. I allow almost all source material as long as it isn't being used for cheese.

Lordblades, my whole thing with the leadership feat and thrallherd is that they are extremely potent feats but only when allowed to be abused. If one of my players has a problem with the cohort/thrall they get they can always tell me hey these are the things I would rather have and I will probably say "ok we can do that," but I think one of the easiest ways to not let things get out of hand is to keep a firm grip on the power level of the game. I have done campaigns where the characters have to fight hyper optimized opponents and should be in turn and in those games I allow cheese, but in a regular game, let's not be a jerk to the DM and make it impossible to run a fun game. If I don;t challenge my players at all with a game then it's no fun for me. It isn't about me beating the players, but about me making their hearts race because the wizard just got knocked out because he can't abrupt jaunt away.

Call me a jerk DM all you want but I do run very fun games. Which is coincidentally why I have been playing with the same 2 groups of people for the past 16 years. And if you don;t think your players are going to try to get out of hand if you let them, obviously you have never DMed for challenging players. Please, any character I have is going to try to be crazy powerful, its up to the DM to make sure I don;t get too powerful.

[LordBlades]

Call me a jerk DM all you want but I do run very fun games. Which is coincidentally why I have been playing with the same 2 groups of people for the past 16 years. And if you don;t think your players are going to try to get out of hand if you let them, obviously you have never DMed for challenging players. Please, any character I have is going to try to be crazy powerful, its up to the DM to make sure I don;t get too powerful.

I play/DM with/for a group that loves high OP, and yet we are all mature enough to have a chat before the game, decide what power level we're aiming for and stick to that.

If trying to be crazy powerful and rely on the DM to stop you works for your group, then good for you :)

In my opinion it's a counterproductive approach to the game, because all the back and forth with players thinking of new tricks and inoffensive looking builds ato try and sneak past the DM, and the DM trying to thwart their plans seems confrontational, tiring and detracts from actually playing and enjoying the game.

And in the end, what's the difference in outcome between 'I'll ban every single thing that would get you past power level X' and 'please don't go past power level X' ?