Proof that WotC wants players to have an army?

[magicalmagicman]

Walker of the Wastes PrC directly says by the time you have 10 levels in the class you should have an army of Salt Mummies and Sand Golems. This is proof that WotC doesn't mind players walking around with an entire army.

Leadership and Undead Leadership imo don't count because the "army" you get is limited and your soldiers are unusable in combat except your cohort.

Fiendbinder... maybe? There's no limit to how many demons you can buy but wealth by level seriously limits the number of demons you can have.

For something to qualify as "proof" WotC must directly state that you should have an army, or they explicitly say there is no limit to how many you can have (or almost explicitly), or something along those lines. For example, Chain Gating Solars aren't "proof" of anything. Neither is Zodar Shapechange Wish Spam to create golems. Or free Simulacrum or Ice Assassins using Rod of Excellent Magic.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Dread Necromancer comes pretty close.

[TheCount]

necromancy in in general does, as it gives you control pools, command undead and, yes prestige classes for it.
i feel the need to give a separate mention of clerics, with thier turn/rebuke undead class features, as they can be modified by domains to turn/rebuke other things.

summoning/gating/calling...as the same, just with time limit on some.

Constructs would count, as there only limit how many one can have is the money they need to spend on materials if they craft it themselves.

There is also the handle animal skill, is it only limit WHAT you can well, handle, not how many. And, just like so many other things, there are ways you can get around that limit.

[InvisibleBison]

I don't see how a remark about one prestige class is a general rule about all characters.

I also don't see why what WotC wants matters if I disagree with it.

[Psyren]

Walker of the Wastes PrC directly says by the time you have 10 levels in the class you should have an army of Salt Mummies and Sand Golems. This is proof that WotC doesn't mind players walking around with an entire army.

It also says you can't get past 7th level in Walker without approval from the Dusty Conclave. So you still need DM approval to get to the point where you have an army, it's not something you can assume the game expects you to have.

[magicalmagicman]

I also don't see why what WotC wants matters if I disagree with it.

I don't recall telling you how to play your game.


It also says you can't get past 7th level in Walker without approval from the Dusty Conclave. So you still need DM approval to get to the point where you have an army, it's not something you can assume the game expects you to have.

It's not DM approval. It's roleplay fluff like needing to be trained by another ur priest. Something needing roleplay has nothing to do with WotC intentionally designing things for players that nets then an army.

[InvisibleBison]

I don't recall telling you how to play your game.

I suppose my earlier remarks were fairly glib. My point is, I don't see how this discovery of yours changes anything. If a DM/group is ok with someone having an army of undead and constructs, then they can do so even if WotC doesn't think it's appropriate; and if a DM/group isn't ok with someone having an army of undead and constructs, then they can't do so even if WotC does think it's appropriate.

[False God]

I mean, yeah okay but it still comes down to whats acceptable at your table. WotC ultimately wants you to have a fun time with your friends, if a Grand Army of the Undead plays into that, great! If it doesn't, well then what's fun for your table should trump what WotC wants or doesn't want.

[Ruethgar]

Leadership, Undead Leadership(LibMort), Undead Leadership(Web), Extra Followers and those other two feats that double the number of level 6 followers and add the sum of level 2+ followers to your level one pool. It shouldn’t be too hard to find a way to make your masses of weak undead become a Mob(template) instead of individual mooks. I calculated for an E6 and it came out to about 3000 basic human skeletons.

Pretty sure Heroes of Battle has some rules on armies as well, but afb.

[magicalmagicman]

I suppose my earlier remarks were fairly glib. My point is, I don't see how this discovery of yours changes anything. If a DM/group is ok with someone having an army of undead and constructs, then they can do so even if WotC doesn't think it's appropriate; and if a DM/group isn't ok with someone having an army of undead and constructs, then they can't do so even if WotC does think it's appropriate.

Lots tables like to include everything in d&d 3.5 and do a gentleman's agreement for balance. WotC intentionally telling players they should have an army is proof that amassing armies fall under gentleman's agreement and a DM should be able to deal with that..

If you're the type of DM that treats rules as guidelines and don't really care about what splat book says what, then by all means do what you want. I'm not disputing anything here. Like you said this thread doesn't apply to you since you're running a different game than WotC is.

[Psyren]

It's not DM approval. It's roleplay fluff like needing to be trained by another ur priest. Something needing roleplay has nothing to do with WotC intentionally designing things for players that nets then an army.

It's not roleplay, it's actually mechanical. Sandstorm:



The conclave maintains and passes on the knowledge of crafting sand golems and animating salt mummies to those deemed worthy of such knowledge. To demonstrate your worthiness, you must undertake a mission for the conclave.
...
If the conclave is satisfied that you have performed the task well, it introduces you to the higher mysteries. Otherwise, the conclave withholds the secrets of mummification and immortality (in game terms, you do not progress beyond 7th level in the prestige class).

Without the Dusty Conclave's approval, you can keep gaining XP, but can't use it to advance the PrC - you'd have to instead put those levels into your base class or something else.

[magicalmagicman]

It's not roleplay, it's actually mechanical. Sandstorm:



Without the Dusty Conclave's approval, you can keep gaining XP, but can't use it to advance the PrC - you'd have to instead put those levels into your base class or something else.

Getting the Dusty Conclave's approval is roleplay just like becoming a friend of the Elves for Ruathar is roleplay or requiring to find an Ur-Priest to train you to get a level in it is roleplay.

The fact that the last 3 levels of WotW being barred behind a roleplay gate doesn't mean anything. At all. Just like having to find a metropolis to buy expensive magic items doesn't mean anything. At all.

[False God]

Lots tables like to include everything in d&d 3.5 and do a gentleman's agreement for balance. WotC intentionally telling players they should have an army is proof that amassing armies fall under gentleman's agreement and a DM should be able to deal with that..

That's not how a gentlemans agreement works.

[magicalmagicman]

That's not how a gentlemans agreement works.

Maybe not at yours, but at our table it's "whatever WotC does, you can do too, because that's intentional and not an exploit".

[Gusmo]

Game mechanics might vaguely be described as existing within a spectrum where 'everything the rules say could exist, does, and must be accessible,' at one pole, and 'only things that the DM say exist do so, and only in the fashion they describe explicitly,' at the other pole. magicman, I think your interpretation skews deep into the former area of such a contrived spectrum. I wouldn't take such perspective to every table and expect it to fly.

[False God]

Maybe not at yours, but at our table it's "whatever WotC does, you can do too, because that's intentional and not an exploit".

That's not a gentlemans agreement then.

You have an agreement to allow whatever WOTC says goes, sure okay fine.

But a gentlemans agreement is one of fair and equitable play, to do business openly, honestly and as equals. Demanding that the DM accept something because its in the book (and perhaps they were unaware) is inherently ungentlemanly because it is demanding that the DM should be the lesser and therefore unequal to another such as yourself or WotC.

You have an agreement at your table yes, but it's not a gentlemans agreement. It's just an agreement.*

*this is not a judgement on your table's rightness or wrongness. It's just a clarification of terms.

[Crake]

I don't really understand the purpose of this thread, who are you trying to convince, and what are you trying to convince them of? Wizards including the option for players to have an army, for games and players that tread such ground doesn't mean by any stretch that wizards want players to have armies, or that players should have armies, only that they can have armies. And of course, ultimately any supplemental material is subject to DM approval, so when it comes to it, the only time players can have armies is when the DM allows it.

Personally, as a DM, if my players want an army, I have them actively build one, not just pick up class features or a feat and just say "hey presto, an army manifests at your fingertips because you got this class mechanic/feat". As such, something like leadership is a bonus feat you get through roleplay when you build an army, not the other way around.

[magicalmagicman]

I don't really understand the purpose of this thread, who are you trying to convince, and what are you trying to convince them of?

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I made a thread about WotC officially telling players you can use this ___ for getting free wishes. Wasn't trying to convince anyone then. And I'm not trying to convince anyone now.

Can't a guy make a list of times WotC gave the green light for PCs to make a huge army of whatever for lulz?

[Crake]

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I made a thread about WotC officially telling players you can use this ___ for getting free wishes. Wasn't trying to convince anyone then. And I'm not trying to convince anyone now.

Can't a guy make a list of times WotC gave the green light for PCs to make a huge army of whatever for lulz?

Well, I mean, forums are more for back and forth discussion, so I guess that's where the confusion arose for me. If I wanted to make a list, I would just use google docs and share it with the people who I think would be interested, and then maybe make a singular showcase thread.

The fact that you put the topic as a question also seems to imply you want a dialogue, rather than just wanting to make a showcase, which I guess further added to the confusion.

[magicalmagicman]

Well, I mean, forums are more for back and forth discussion, so I guess that's where the confusion arose for me. If I wanted to make a list, I would just use google docs and share it with the people who I think would be interested, and then maybe make a singular showcase thread.

The fact that you put the topic as a question also seems to imply you want a dialogue, rather than just wanting to make a showcase, which I guess further added to the confusion.

D&d is not well documented and digitally searchable because of copyright. Which is why people like me go to a forum visited by many veterans regularly to crowd source a list. There are other threads on the front page doing the same exact thing.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?610919-3-5-Recharging-Items

[Psyren]

Getting the Dusty Conclave's approval is roleplay just like becoming a friend of the Elves for Ruathar is roleplay or requiring to find an Ur-Priest to train you to get a level in it is roleplay.

The fact that the last 3 levels of WotW being barred behind a roleplay gate doesn't mean anything. At all. Just like having to find a metropolis to buy expensive magic items doesn't mean anything. At all.

That's the point though. Yes, you have to roleplay to get past that gate, but the mechanics are barred until you do all the same. You can't look at that and assume that an army is an expectation of every player in every game. If your GM (acting via the Dusty Conclave) approves it, great, but that approval is necessary.

[Godskook]

Walker of the Wastes PrC directly says by the time you have 10 levels in the class you should have an army of Salt Mummies and Sand Golems. This is proof that WotC doesn't mind players walking around with an entire army.

Faulty assumption: You're assuming that just because a prestige class is intended to have something, that means players are also intended to have it by sheer extension. This is explicitly false on the general level, as stated in the DMG, where it is explained that prestige-class access should not be carte blanche.

Still, it would be a fair counterpoint to say that many prestige classes -are- intended to used by players in most games, by WotC, so while a DM might object, WotC doesn't anticipate it in those cases. Ok, on that counterpoint, let's see what the Walker PrC has to say. In the section "Walkers in the game" on page 93, WotC describes various contexts about how they expect(intend, essentially) this class to be used. First, as an NPC BBEG, presenting an ongoing threat to civilization as a centerpiece villain of a campaign. Second, they discuss a PC Walker, which I'll discuss below. Third, they discuss using the Walker in the role of Patron to non-good PCs. And Fourth, an "alternative" which is not clear to me if it's discussing a PC or NPC usage of the class, but this option is temporary and requires excusing the normal nature of the Walker.

Now, to address the case of the PC Walker, the book outright states that a PC Walker is "more difficult since such beings are solitary by nature"(read: not intended for this). I.e., it seems rather clear that WotC did not intend for the typical PC to be able to access this class at all, as the general intent of a party outright contradicts the general intent for the class.

[Elkad]

Familiars, animal companions, mounts, cohorts, golems, undead, mules, guard dogs, summons, binds, plain old hirelings, and whatever else.

Yeah, that fits my playstyle just fine. If my 6 players want to push 60 tokens through the dungeon door, great. That means I can slaughter them in droves, without actually killing the party

[magicalmagicman]

That's the point though. Yes, you have to roleplay to get past that gate, but the mechanics are barred until you do all the same. You can't look at that and assume that an army is an expectation of every player in every game. If your GM (acting via the Dusty Conclave) approves it, great, but that approval is necessary.

You don't need this. There's a quote in DMG that says DMs get to choose what PrCs to allow in his game or not so this whole line of reasoning is pointless.


Faulty assumption: You're assuming that just because a prestige class is intended to have something, that means players are also intended to have it by sheer extension. This is explicitly false on the general level, as stated in the DMG, where it is explained that prestige-class access should not be carte blanche.

Like this person says. DM gets full control in what PrCs to allow disallow.

But both is completely irrelevant to the fact that WotC doesn't mind and in fact encourages players to build an army.

[Crake]

But both is completely irrelevant to the fact that WotC doesn't mind and in fact encourages players to build an army.

I think you're confusing "giving the option" with "encouraging". Wizards of the coast haven't actually run any 3.5 games for over a decade too, so what they "don't mind" is irrelevant, since you're not playing at their tables.

As a side note, go look at some of the old wizards public play rules and see if they allowed excessive minionmancy in any form, and ask yourself again what wizards of the coast does and does not mind.

Your entire argument is based on the faulty assumption that "if they published the option to do so, that means it must be encouraged". As an aside, the only "encouragement" that matters is your DM's encouragement.

[Zanos]

I don't think most DMs really care how many individual entities you control as long as it doesn't bloat the duration of the persons turn or supplant other PCs.

I have banned individual players from minionmancy in the past because they would take 10x as long to resolve their turn as another player.

[magicalmagicman]

I think you're confusing "giving the option" with "encouraging". Wizards of the coast haven't actually run any 3.5 games for over a decade too, so what they "don't mind" is irrelevant, since you're not playing at their tables.

The recommendation to create an army to prevent any creature except the strongest from challenging you is located under the section PLAYING a walker in the waste.


Your entire argument is based on the faulty assumption that "if they published the option to do so, that means it must be encouraged". As an aside, the only "encouragement" that matters is your DM's encouragement.

You are quite the strawman.

And don't focus so much on the walker. So many people here have provided many other options of mass armies.

[Darrin]

It's considered somewhat canon, at least from 1st Edition days, that when a character reaches "Name Level" (10th in 1st Ed.), then they are expected to build a keep and attract followers. Followers generally are treated as your own little army.

Structurally, the game rules are built on top of a miniatures wargame. Sometimes you can feel the bones poking up through everything else they've added.

[Psyren]

You don't need this. There's a quote in DMG that says DMs get to choose what PrCs to allow in his game or not so this whole line of reasoning is pointless.

You're using the capstone of this PrC specifically as an argument that all players are expected to have armies. So pointing out that this PrC specifically doesn't let you reach that capstone without fulfilling a roleplay requirement, and therefore that trying to extrapolate a universal expectation from it doesn't work, is valid.

And yes - I can use the DMG general rule too if you'd prefer that, and say that anything any PrC gets you requires DM approval and therefore can't be used as a general expectation.

[Nifft]

Maybe not at yours, but at our table it's "whatever WotC does, you can do too, because that's intentional and not an exploit".

Many exploits were fully intentional because WotC was bad at understanding their own rules.

[Asmotherion]

D&D was originally developed by putting Fantasy and RPG elements into a Strategy game. At the time people had longer attention spans, and a couple sessions devoted to combat between 2 armies was probably not out of the question.

It also explains some AoEs and high level spells (meteor swarm for example) that are designed as army destroyers and city crushers rather than two small parties of 4-6 each fighting each other.

Even Animate Dead was designed with the regular 2HD zombie in mind originally.

[Psyren]

At the time people had longer attention spans,

Are they on your lawn too? :smalltongue:

I think it's fairer to say that game (and in particular classes and the magic system) got more complicated/involved, such that special rules were a better way to model army vs. army clashes.

[magicalmagicman]

You're using the capstone of this PrC specifically as an argument that all players are expected to have armies. So pointing out that this PrC specifically doesn't let you reach that capstone without fulfilling a roleplay requirement, and therefore that trying to extrapolate a universal expectation from it doesn't work, is valid.

And yes - I can use the DMG general rule too if you'd prefer that, and say that anything any PrC gets you requires DM approval and therefore can't be used as a general expectation.

You act like WotC uses roleplay requirements as a way to introduce dm permission into a class feature as a balance mechanic when they already made all PrCs require dm permission from the start. Absolutely ludicrous.

There's no way you're gonna convince me Ruathar and Ur-Priests and Rainbow Servant's roleplay requirements are a balance mechanic used by WotC to doubly enforce dm permission for access.

[Psyren]

You act like WotC uses roleplay requirements as a way to introduce dm permission into a class feature as a balance mechanic when they already made all PrCs require dm permission from the start. Absolutely ludicrous.

You're acting like something that requires DM permission is automatically available to every PC. Absolutely ludicrous.

[magicalmagicman]

You're acting like something that requires DM permission is automatically available to every PC. Absolutely ludicrous.

Where did I say that? Nice Strawman.

I'll refer you to post #6

I don't recall telling you how to play your game.

[Psyren]

Where did I say that? Nice Strawman.

I'll refer you to post #6

I'm not telling you how to play your game though - you made a general statement that isn't game-specific in post#1:


Walker of the Wastes PrC directly says by the time you have 10 levels in the class you should have an army of Salt Mummies and Sand Golems. This is proof that WotC doesn't mind players walking around with an entire army.

My point is that "you can obtain X if a DM-controlled organization approves it" is not proof that every player should be allowed to do/have X.

[Asmotherion]

Are they on your lawn too? :smalltongue:

I think it's fairer to say that game (and in particular classes and the magic system) got more complicated/involved, such that special rules were a better way to model army vs. army clashes.

XD, what can I say, deep down I'm a boomer at heart.

It's kinda true though, considering the lack of internet availability. Today, I have a question, I oppen google on my smart phone, and in less than 3 secconds I have a number of articles on the matter, including online encyclopedia s and probably a couple youtube tutorials on how it works. Back in the day, you'd need to note your question, and latter find the answear in the library unless you happened to have a book on the matter at home, or a friend whose skillset was relative to the question.

Also, it was kind of out of the question to play a strategy game online through a dial up connection, unless you could afford half your salery on the phone bill :smalltongue:

[magicalmagicman]

My point is that "you can obtain X if a DM-controlled organization approves it" is not proof that every player should be allowed to do/have X.

Did i say every player should be allowed to do/have x?

This thread is about what WotC wants. WotC is totally fine with players with their own armies and even encourages them. Whether this applies to your table or not has nothing to do with what WotC is ok with. WotC encourages and makes PrCs that specifically make armies. And I'm definitely not saying "all players should have armies".

And another thing, stop focusing so much on Walker. Other people in this thread have shared quite a few number of other army amassers.

Once again I will say your argument that WotC uses roleplay as a balance mechanic for classes like Ruathar, Ur-Priest, Rainbow Servant, Contemplative, etc. to redundantly implement a 2nd "permission gate" makes no sense and has nothing to do with the fact that WotC made way more than a handful of things that let players amass an army.

I will say if you are someone who intends to play d&d 3.5 the way WotC intended, then you should allow players to amass their armies. More than one source book encourages you to use the entire wealth of content in d&d 3.0/3.5.

[goodpeople25]

Are you looking for "proof" that WotC intended you to be able to have a large group of combat capable minions compared to the size of a typical adventuring party, or "proof" that they intended you to have hundreds if not thousands of troops at your personal command?

From the text you provided you could possibly "prove" the former (I don't know anything about the capabilities of salt mummies and sand golems) but I sincerely doubt you could get close to "proving" the latter.

[magicalmagicman]

Are you looking for "proof" that WotC intended you to be able to have a large group of combat capable minions compared to the size of a typical adventuring party, or "proof" that they intended you to have hundreds if not thousands of troops at your personal command?

From the text you provided you could possibly "prove" the former (I don't know anything about the capabilities of salt mummies and sand golems) but I sincerely doubt you could get close to "proving" the latter.

Whatever d&d defines an army as.

[Crake]

The recommendation to create an army to prevent any creature except the strongest from challenging you is located under the section PLAYING a walker in the waste.



You are quite the strawman.

And don't focus so much on the walker. So many people here have provided many other options of mass armies.

I didn't focus on the walker at all. My point is that not all options need to be available in all games, and the only parameters that matter are those your DM sets, it doesn't matter at all what wizards of the coast is fine with, encourages, or discourages, because your table isn't run by wizards of the coast.

[NigelWalmsley]

So, I don't super care about the specific topic this time around, but this is your mandatory reminder that while "WotC intends this" is a bad take, "your DM decides and you live with it" is also a bad take. The correct solution is to discuss things as a group like the mature adults you are. If you try to use either cherry picked examples or your power as DM to bully people into doing what you want, you are hurting the game and you should stop doing that.

[Crake]

So, I don't super care about the specific topic this time around, but this is your mandatory reminder that while "WotC intends this" is a bad take, "your DM decides and you live with it" is also a bad take. The correct solution is to discuss things as a group like the mature adults you are. If you try to use either cherry picked examples or your power as DM to bully people into doing what you want, you are hurting the game and you should stop doing that.

Sorry if I maybe was coming across as saying "Just accept what your DM says and be quiet". My point was more that what wizards intends or encourages is irrelevant, speak with your DM about what you want to do, and, if that's something they're happy to run with, they will find a way to make it happen, regardless of what the thing is, and regardless of what wizards says.

[Psyren]

Did i say every player should be allowed to do/have x?
...
I will say if you are someone who intends to play d&d 3.5 the way WotC intended, then you should allow players to amass their armies. More than one source book encourages you to use the entire wealth of content in d&d 3.0/3.5.

So not "every player should be allowed" but "every player who intends to play D&D 3.5 the way WotC intended should be allowed."

That would be fine, except you yourself stated that "the way WotC intended" is that every PrC should only be allowed on a case-by-case basis, not assumed to just be available.

[magicalmagicman]

So, I don't super care about the specific topic this time around, but this is your mandatory reminder that while "WotC intends this" is a bad take


I didn't focus on the walker at all. My point is that not all options need to be available in all games, and the only parameters that matter are those your DM sets, it doesn't matter at all what wizards of the coast is fine with, encourages, or discourages, because your table isn't run by wizards of the coast.

Did I say anywhere that anyone who doesn't play the game the way WotC intended is playing the game wrong? I will refer you to post #4 and post #6


I also don't see why what WotC wants matters if I disagree with it.


I don't recall telling you how to play your game.

Why are so many people putting words in my mouth as if I'm telling them how to run their game? Unless you advertise yourself as someone who plays the game the way the designers intended this thread has absolutely no relevance to you or your table whatsoever.


So not "every player should be allowed" but "every player who intends to play D&D 3.5 the way WotC intended should be allowed."

That would be fine, except you yourself stated that "the way WotC intended" is that every PrC should only be allowed on a case-by-case basis, not assumed to just be available.

WotC makes it clear that the DM is in control of everything. The DM gets to choose what to allow what not to allow, and encourages homebrew.

But at the same time they encourage the DM to include the entire wealth of content in 3.5.

So their intent is DM is in control of everything, and DMs should include everything because it's better to include everything.

In other words, they don't intend to tell you how to run your game but at the same time they want you to include everything.

[Jack_Simth]

Also, it was kind of out of the question to play a strategy game online through a dial up connection, unless you could afford half your salery on the phone bill :smalltongue:
That's actually the source of the "tech geeks are night owls" thing - long distance was cheaper late at night or early AM, as there weren't nearly so many people on the lines at those hours.

[Crake]

Did I say anywhere that anyone who doesn't play the game the way WotC intended is playing the game wrong? I will refer you to post #4 and post #6

You're missing my point that WotC didn't intend anyone to play dnd any specific way, they simply supplied material to allow people to play the game in whichever way those players intended.

[Mordante]

But both is completely irrelevant to the fact that WotC doesn't mind and in fact encourages players to build an army.

WoTC is not encouraging anyone to do anything. My lvl16, nearly 17 character is a nobody. No armies, no wealth, he shares a house with rest of the party. A house a noble gave to them because the finished a quest.

WotC wrote down guideline and setup a world. It's up to the GM and the players what to do with them.

[gogogome]

WoTC is not encouraging anyone to do anything. My lvl16, nearly 17 character is a nobody. No armies, no wealth, he shares a house with rest of the party. A house a noble gave to them because the finished a quest.

WotC wrote down guideline and setup a world. It's up to the GM and the players what to do with them.

This is Complete Psionics, the last book published in 3.5


Complete Psionic makes use of the information in the three D&D core rulebooks—Player's Handbook(PH),Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG), and Monster Manual (MM)—as well as Expanded Psionics Handbook (EPH). It doesn't directly reference any other books (aside from a single mention of Fiend Folio), but it draws on the accumulated heritage of D&D supplements
published since 2000. Although possession of any or all of these supplements will enhance your enjoyment of this book, they are not strictly necessary

They are recommending you use all of the supplements. That's encouraging.

[Crake]

This is Complete Psionics, the last book published in 3.5



They are recommending you use all of the supplements. That's encouraging.

Yeah, because recommending their supplements would net them money when you bought them.

[nijineko]

The best proof of the "supposed to gain armies" concept is history.

Looking at earlier editions of the game, gaining followers and cohorts used to be part of the class features of Fighters and the thief class. Mages gained a few apprentices. In later editions, Monks, Clerics, Paladins, Bards, and more are all listed as gaining a certain number of followers and cohorts, the exact numbers varied with their class, but Fighters gained the greatest numbers, eventually becoming a (small) army.

This was how a fighter could successfully counter a wizard in the old days - by massive siege of an army versus the wizard's tower, magic defenses, and few apprentices - basically, an epic battle attempting to overrun the powerful spells of the wizard, precisely in keeping with the original wargame roots of D&D.

The reasons for this are that D&D was originally a homebrew of the Chainmail medieval wargame which was more or less a game of mass combat of medieval armies, and thus has kept traces of these roots in pretty much every edition afterwards.

Based on accounts of how Gygax and Arneson both ran their games, comments made by early playtesters and designers alike, as well as looking at the printed rules of progression of various classes in various editions of the game, along with additions by new generations of designers later in the development of the game, the following can be abstracted:



Low levels are for dungeon and wilderness exploration as a small group.
Medium levels are for finishing up the explorations and starting to think about settling down with your followers and building keeps / towers / abbeys / monasteries / groves / etc for the various classes... and also serving country and king and starting to get into political games.
Medium high levels are for fielding armies and becoming kings and rulers themselves, mastering politics (or not), and hiring others to do the dungeon crawling for you to get a cut of the wealth.
High levels are for planar explorations in person and opening negotiations with local denizens, etc., as opposed to adventure style planar forays in earlier levels.
Really high levels are for dealing with planar politics and massive inter-planar armies and eventually the possibility of ascension.


In 3rd edition, the cohorts and followers automatically gained by leveling up was abstracted into the Leadership Feat in the DMG (the text still retains some of the features from earlier editions), and the building structures automatically gained by leveling up were abstracted into the Landlord feat in the Stronghold Builders Guidebook... making them options rather than a required part of the class. The immortality options of previous editions were moved into the Dieties and Demigods and high (epic) levels are found in the DMG, and also the ELH (which is not considered well written, and technically doesn't even exist since the epic rules in the DMG override the epic rules in the ELH due to sourcebook primacy rules...).

[Psyren]

The fact that Leadership and Strongholds are both explicitly optional means that "supposed to" is an overstatement.

[nijineko]

The fact that Leadership and Strongholds are both explicitly optional means that "supposed to" is an overstatement.

I meant supposed to in the historical context - it used to be that way. They decided to make it optional in 3.x as not everyone desires to play using that old framework that D&D has been built around, and in fact still is built around - despite making those parts optional.

[Xervous]

If we’re going into semantics about that WotC wasn’t in charge prior to 3e. Any intent before that point rests with the creators and is thus irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Psyren]

If we’re going into semantics about that WotC wasn’t in charge prior to 3e. Any intent before that point rests with the creators and is thus irrelevant to the topic at hand.

This - whether we're talking about Gygax or TSR the answer is the same, what they wanted isn't what WotC wants.