When have I "Caused the death of other followers"?

[Max Caysey]

So, assume the following:

My level 6 paladin [LE marshal] and 5 of his trusted followers patrols a forest camp... we get attacked by a blighter and a few scouts. The blighter brings his animal companion. We engage combat (roll initiative), and I command my followers to attack (I do not command the retreat or surrender). In the midst of the battle, 3 of 5 followers die, but we succeed in felling the blighter!

Have I caused the death of other followers in the above example, thus warranting the -1 leadership modifier, as per the "Table: Attracting Followers" - or did the blighter cause the death by attacking us?


Cheers!

[Zanos]

Mandatory Disclaimer: Ask your DM.

My opinion? Based on your description, you have 5 level 1 followers. It specifically says in the description of followers that their low level means they're rarely effective in combat. You, as a level 6 character confronting challenges appropriate to your level, put 5 level 1s in a situation where it was very likely that they would die, and then they did. I would give you the -1.

[Mordaedil]

I feel like the cause of death has to be a more direct consequence than simply making a reasonable order.

The idea is that it is supposed to be a penalty for somebody cruelly executing their followers or making unreasonable demands of them.

[hamishspence]

"Cruelty" is a separate, -2 penalty. "Caused the death of followers" is a -1 penalty.

A person who has "caused the death of followers" but is not "cruel" is more popular than a person who is "cruel", but has never "caused the death of followers" all other things being equal.



So I think, in this context,

"sending them to their death through giving them somewhat unreasonable orders"

is enough to trigger the -1 penalty.

Torturing (but not executing) them for failure, would get the -2 penalty.

"Cruelly executing" (executing them in a cruel fashion) would get both penalties.

[Asmotherion]

Well, considering the "caused the death" clause to be "Killed them, or knowingly sent them to their death" yeah. Especially as a Paladin, you're supposed to take extra steps to ensure the people you sent to battle have at least a fighting chance, and followers are not even supposed to be following you in battle (save for following your direct orders) I'd say you had a good part in the events that lead to their death. Unless your Character has like, 7 intelligence, you should know the aproximate power of your followers before sending them to their death. As a DM I'd even ask for an Atonement and a small quest to get your Paladin Powers back.

[Segev]

Well, considering the "caused the death" clause to be "Killed them, or knowingly sent them to their death" yeah. Especially as a Paladin, you're supposed to take extra steps to ensure the people you sent to battle have at least a fighting chance, and followers are not even supposed to be following you in battle (save for following your direct orders) I'd say you had a good part in the events that lead to their death. Unless your Character has like, 7 intelligence, you should know the aproximate power of your followers before sending them to their death. As a DM I'd even ask for an Atonement and a small quest to get your Paladin Powers back.

I agree that the leadership score penalty applies, but not that he has broken his Paladin requirements. The penalty represents people knowing he asks his followers to follow him into danger, in this case. A paladin should try to protect his men, but is not nongood if he asks people to risk their lives for their own or a greater good. Leadership isn’t compulsion. They have free will. Leadership just represents how many people who will choose to take heed.

Now, if he’s throwing them away for no reason, or for his own convenience, or the like, that’s a paladin-no-no. But if he’s leading them to try to do some real good and is doing his best to ensure their victory and survival, it’s just the leadership penalty.

[Max Caysey]

Mandatory Disclaimer: Ask your DM.
Indeed!


I feel like the cause of death has to be a more direct consequence than simply making a reasonable order.

The idea is that it is supposed to be a penalty for somebody cruelly executing their followers or making unreasonable demands of them.

That is how I feel too... Otherwise it would seem that any death is on me... I mean they are soldiers. Normal soldiers are level 1... so death is something very common among solders. Would a defending nation's king be the cause of death because they defended their homeland and didn't yield to the invasion horde - and the invading horde killed them? I don't think so! Here the perpetrator is clearly the invading horde!


Well, considering the "caused the death" clause to be "Killed them, or knowingly sent them to their death" yeah. Especially as a Paladin, you're supposed to take extra steps to ensure the people you sent to battle have at least a fighting chance, and followers are not even supposed to be following you in battle (save for following your direct orders) I'd say you had a good part in the events that lead to their death. Unless your Character has like, 7 intelligence, you should know the aproximate power of your followers before sending them to their death. As a DM I'd even ask for an Atonement and a small quest to get your Paladin Powers back.

Actually the character in question is a LE marshal and not a paladin. The followers were fighters! Anyway, the character works for a lord, and the lord sent them to investigate a logging camp, which had missed their shipments. It could have been any reason really, but it turned out it was a bligther... But if the character was send by a lord and he chooses to bring soldiers, and those soldiers die because of an ambush... is that really on the character or the lord or the blighter? I mean there's clearly a difference between not actively trying to have the all survive and directly causing their death... Is is really necessary to retreat instantly if you don't want the penalty? Ity says "caused death of..." not "if any dies in your custody/under your command..."

[DeTess]

Actually the character in question is a LE marshal and not a paladin. Anyway, the character works for a lord, and the lord sent them to investigate a logging camp, which had missed their shipments. It could have been any reason really, but it turned out it was a bligther... But if the character was send by a lord and he chooses to bring soldiers, and those soldiers die because of an ambush... is that really on the character or the lord or the blighter? I mean there's clearly a difference between not actively trying to have the all survive and causing their death... Is is really necessary to retreat instantly if you don't want the penalty? Ity says "caused death of..." not "if any dies in your custody..."

I think the penalty should apply whenever the character gives a command that the character knows, or should know, will lead to one or more of their followers dying. Whether your character knew that in advance in this case is another discussion, of course, but the penalty should represent the difficulty a commander who is known to have a high attrition among their forces has in recruiting new troops.

Put another way, let's say you bring 20 level 3 archers to a fight against an adult dragon. I'd say it's reasonable to lay the blame (and therefore the penalty) for those archer's death by dragon-fire at your feet, as it's a very predictable outcome to bringing low-level cannon-fodder to a big dragonhunt. Now, if you'd planned an elaborate trap that minimized the risks to your troops, and still one or two get unlucky and die, I'd look more favourable on your actions and might not apply the penalty.

[johnbragg]

That is how I feel too... Otherwise it would seem that any death is on me... I mean they are soldiers. Normal soldiers are level 1... so death is something very common among solders. Would a defending nation's king be the cause of death because they defended their homeland and didn't yield to the invasion horde - and the invading horde killed them? I don't think so! Here the perpetrator is clearly the invading horde!

If the "successful defense of the city/kingdom" involved 60% of the king's army dying, that's not considered great generalship.

If these followers are soldiers in your organization, and you're their commanding officer, your higher ups might give you new recruits. But if you recruited them personally, you're going to have a rough time if you go back to the same taverns / docksides / peasant villages and try to recruit their acquaintances.


Actually the character in question is a LE marshal and not a paladin. Anyway, the character works for a lord, and the lord sent them to investigate a logging camp, which had missed their shipments. It could have been any reason really, but it turned out it was a bligther... But if the character was send by a lord and he chooses to bring soldiers, and those soldiers die because of an ambush... is that really on the character or the lord or the blighter? I mean there's clearly a difference between not actively trying to have the all survive and directly causing their death... Is is really necessary to retreat instantly if you don't want the penalty? Ity says "caused death of..." not "if any dies in your custody/under your command..."

“'To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

You could have ordered a retreat, reported back and returned with greater force.
You could have ordered a retreat to cover, and then had them make ranged attacks.
You could have made sure your followers were supplied with some 50gp potions of cure light wounds.
What you did, is order them to attack when, based on the casualty reports, to do so was near-suicide.

So yeah, your reputation as a commander has taken a hit. You don't seem to care very much about spending the lives of your men to get the mission accomplished. Which may be well and good for your lord, but sucks for the poor bastards under your command.

"But they're soldiers, that's the job they signed up for"
Good luck getting people to sign up for the job then.

[Max Caysey]

If the "successful defense of the city/kingdom" involved 60% of the king's army dying, that's not considered great generalship.

I have a total of 18 followers, 15 level 1, 2 level 2 and 1 level 3. I brought my cohort, 1 level 3 and 5 level 1s... just to be clear and they were all solders(fighters), equipted with masterwork equipment. So of the 18 I have 3 died in the line of duty as a soldier in my militia.

The actual tactical command was given the the level 3, who is the squat commander (Sergeant).



You could have ordered a retreat, reported back and returned with greater force.
You could have ordered a retreat to cover, and then had them make ranged attacks.
You could have made sure your followers were supplied with some 50gp potions of cure light wounds.
What you did, is order them to attack when, based on the casualty reports, to do so was near-suicide.


If I understand correctly, you equate "caused death of..." to "not taking every possible action to ensure the survival of the soldiers under my command"? If that were the case, the modifer would say: "If any follower dies while under your comman"... We were attacked and defended ourselves... it just happened that the blighter got off a flamestrike that did more than the 10 hp they had, because they all failed their save. No one knew there were any enemies!

They actually did stand back and used their MW Comp. They did have potions of CLW.


So yeah, your reputation as a commander has taken a hit. You don't seem to care very much about spending the lives of your men to get the mission accomplished. Which may be well and good for your lord, but sucks for the poor bastards under your command.

From what did you read that... not retreating instantly is clearly not the same as sending people into their certain death... we did win the encounter...so clearly not overwhelming odds, far from it actually... 3 of 8 lost their lives to a spell.



"But they're soldiers, that's the job they signed up for" Good luck getting people to sign up for the job then.

Spoken like a true person who have never served! Basically every country in NATO has no issues recruiting people for their military... And basically all soldiers who deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq 2001-2014 did so voluntarily! And still there are plenty of recruits! So yes that is the job their signed up for, and yes its actually going to be very easy getting more recruits!

[johnbragg]

If I understand correctly, you equate "caused death of..." to "not taking every possible action to ensure the survival of the soldiers under my command"?

I would say "Not taking reasonable action to ensure....."


If that were the case, the modifer would say: "If any follower dies while under your comman"... We were attacked and defended ourselves... it just happened that the blighter got off a flamestrike that did more than the 10 hp they had, because they all failed their save. No one knew there were any enemies!

OK, that's not what you said in the OP. "we get attacked by a blighter and a few scouts. The blighter brings his animal companion. We engage combat (roll initiative), and I command my followers to attack (I do not command the retreat or surrender)."

It sounded like you gave them orders to attack (or stand their ground, or something).

In the new account, it sounds like you didn't have time to give them any orders. If you were surprised by the appearance of a 9th level spellcaster (at least), that's not something under your control, and people in the world will understand that.


They actually did stand back and used their MW Comp. They did have potions of CLW.
This weighs in your favor as a commander.


From what did you read that... not retreating instantly is clearly not the same as sending people into their certain death... we did win the encounter...so clearly not overwhelming odds, far from it actually... 3 of 8 lost their lives to a spell.

From what did you read that... From your OP.


Spoken like a true person who have never served! Basically every country in NATO has no issues recruiting people for their military... And basically all soldiers who deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq 2001-2014 did so voluntarily! And still there are plenty of recruits! So yes that is the job their signed up for, and yes its actually going to be very easy getting more recruits!

They didn't have a 60% KIA ratio. (Which is the number from your OP.) They weren't facing forces with vastly superior technology (spells).

[Darg]

If the "successful defense of the city/kingdom" involved 60% of the king's army dying, that's not considered great generalship.

I'm not sure you understand the nature of all out war. If they were successfully able to repel invaders and cause enough harm that they were left alone and ended the war, that would be success. You have to have men put their lives on the line to defend the walls. You have to have them exposed in order to kill others.

We can say that being responsible implies that any death results in the penalty. But that carries with it the issue that any order that brings death such as ordering a follower to deliver a message on a peaceful road that trips over their own feet and ends up somehow dead from a brain injury becomes the fault of the commander. Soldiers only resent irresponsible deaths. Sure the marshal could have ordered a retreat, but what happens when they get shot in the back and die? Who's fault is it then? Performing a duty is not irresponsible. It was the soldiers duty to carry out the orders, implied or otherwise, of the lord. The order to attack was a victory. Sure, there were deaths, but the cause was duty or the enemy. The marshal didn't just have them jump off a cliff, he had them jump off a cliff with the ever present chance that the parachutes wouldn't open. Would a captain be the cause for something beyond his control?

[Zanos]

That is how I feel too... Otherwise it would seem that any death is on me
A king's soldiers are generally paid, and do not follow him as a cult of personality. Some might, but most are there to get paid. Still, as someone else mentioned, a substantial amount of a king's soldiers dying in a single activity is likely to cause him to get a bad reputation.


... I mean they are soldiers. Normal soldiers are level 1... so death is something very common among solders.
Not really, because level 1 soldiers usually aren't made to fight threats that far outstrip them. Common guards should be level 1-3 warriors, with a watch sergeant generally being level 4-5. You'll notice that a common guard generally has enough hitpoints that a good blow will knock him unconscious, but he has a pretty good chance of stabilizing before he bleeds out, even if nobody helps him. If we're talking historical combat in general, loss of morale was a far more common cause for a route than loss of life.


Would a defending nation's king be the cause of death because they defended their homeland and didn't yield to the invasion horde - and the invading horde killed them? I don't think so! Here the perpetrator is clearly the invading horde!
If the king makes his soldiers fight to the death against a foe that far outmatches them, he's probably not going to have a very good relationship among his soldiers, or his people.

Really, consider the danger you're putting people in by having them fight level 5+ foes with a single hit die. If a level 5 wizard cast a fireball on your entourage, they would all die immediately. That is the kind of danger you're putting them in.

[icefractal]

Keep in mind, this is only a -1 modifier, the same as "moves around a lot". It doesn't mean "You are a horrible leader and everyone hates you", it's just "This is a less cushy job than staying in town crafting/info-gathering/proselytizing" (what some people do with their followers), and therefore a little harder to recruit people for.

So I'd say that it does apply. But again, this doesn't mean that people would consider your actions unacceptable IC, just that it's harder to recruit soldiers than to hire people for non-dangerous work.

[Asmotherion]

Indeed!



That is how I feel too... Otherwise it would seem that any death is on me... I mean they are soldiers. Normal soldiers are level 1... so death is something very common among solders. Would a defending nation's king be the cause of death because they defended their homeland and didn't yield to the invasion horde - and the invading horde killed them? I don't think so! Here the perpetrator is clearly the invading horde!



Actually the character in question is a LE marshal and not a paladin. The followers were fighters! Anyway, the character works for a lord, and the lord sent them to investigate a logging camp, which had missed their shipments. It could have been any reason really, but it turned out it was a bligther... But if the character was send by a lord and he chooses to bring soldiers, and those soldiers die because of an ambush... is that really on the character or the lord or the blighter? I mean there's clearly a difference between not actively trying to have the all survive and directly causing their death... Is is really necessary to retreat instantly if you don't want the penalty? Ity says "caused death of..." not "if any dies in your custody/under your command..."

My main concerns are the following:

A) In contrast to your cohort who is supposed to follow you in battle, followers are supposed to be more of a social benefit rather than something to use in battle. So, all that was needed to prevent their death was not to order them to follow you in battle (in your example, patrol, that has a high probability to end up in a combat encounter). If you were just mining your own buisness, and were, for example, going to plan a party, and the enemy attacked, it would not have been on you.

B) Your character most probably knew that your followers were not going to survive an encounter of your CR, and thus ordered them to come along disreguarding their lives as casualties.

C) Yes, accidents happen, and yes, soldiers die in war. I'm not arguing against that. It's just that, as a soldier, you'd feel much more secure and trusting towards a superior that has a reputation for never loosing a soldier than one who has made mistakes that costed the lives of his subordinates. It's a normal conclusion, unless you bribe your followers to lie about how they died (for example, ignored orders to retreat) saving your reputation. After all, if nobody knows about it, it's like it never happened, when society is concerned.

The -1 is just a mechanic that shows actions have consequences. As you buff your charisma higher and higher, it will end up not mattering either way, as you'll far surpass the Leadership Feat cap.

[tomandtish]

Without weighing in on whether you deserve it or not, the important thing to understand is that the penalty is based on the reaction of your followers (or the survivors in this case). How did THEY feel about the situation? Did they believe you ordering them into that combat was reasonable, or did they believe you were throwing their lives away? If the first, no penalty. If the latter, then penalty.

When I play with it, it can also be based on past actions as well as present. Even justified actions can get the penalty if every time one gets new followers he ends up losing some in combat. And one might not get the penalty even if it was a slaughter if it seemed reasonable or justified.

[Segev]

What I think I haven't gotten across well in my prior posts is that the penalty is there to represent that you have a reputation for losing followers. It really doesn't matter if it's "your fault" or not: if your followers keep winding up dead, then you probably should have the penalty. If a loved one could reasonably argue, "Sweetie, please don't join his quest; I don't want to see you get hurt," then you probably should have the -1 leadership penalty. The fact it's only -1 means you'll still have plenty who're willing to join you despite the risks, but it is a risk that weighs on the minds of the potential followers.

[Darg]

You deserve a thumbs up. I think that was eloquently explained in a fashion my grandmother would understand.

[King of Nowhere]

every general will lose some followers, and i would not apply that penalty to normal battle casualties.
but 60% casualties on a single encounter is pretty bad. most real fighting ends well before that with one side running away.
so, if you had lost a follower there, i would not apply the penalty, but having lost 3 on a battle that you could have handled with less losses, i would indeed.

[Darg]

The feat isn't about making an army. You hire people to do that. In that case the feat isn't necessary. Followers are following out of their desire to be helpful or near you, not a sense of duty or payment. Followers can follow you and yet have a job. The OP mentioned that the followers were also soldiers. They have a duty to their occupation. They weren't out on patrol out of a sense of obligation to the marshal as a man, but as a captain. The marshal didn't cause followers to die during the altercation. He caused soldiers to die. There is a difference, and no one would fault them if they weren't directly affected.

[Brenden1k]

If the "successful defense of the city/kingdom" involved 60% of the king's army dying, that's not considered great generalship.

If these followers are soldiers in your organization, and you're their commanding officer, your higher ups might give you new recruits. But if you recruited them personally, you're going to have a rough time if you go back to the same taverns / docksides / peasant villages and try to recruit their acquaintances.
.

Well it does depend on the scenario, if you took those losses punching out a evil god and you do not normally face those, it could be considered proof of your greatness, But yeah one got to be careful to explain how whole boounch of people died. might suggest have the penalty expire over the course of good treatment of followers depending on how rare the event was. In this case the followers were used as cannon folder and it did not even seem to be a extreme event. yes the penalty was well deserved since they were not treated as if they were hard to place. Now the PC suggested the followers fall back and act as range support while the PC tanks and than something went wrong, that might be a different story since the pc attempted to move them out of the line of fire and was not treating them as expendable in a way he would not treat his own character


Training your followers to be archers seems like a good use if you can get them trained, heck even a sling or throwing stones can force magic casters to make concentration checks.

[Segev]

The feat isn't about making an army. You hire people to do that. In that case the feat isn't necessary. Followers are following out of their desire to be helpful or near you, not a sense of duty or payment. Followers can follow you and yet have a job. The OP mentioned that the followers were also soldiers. They have a duty to their occupation. They weren't out on patrol out of a sense of obligation to the marshal as a man, but as a captain. The marshal didn't cause followers to die during the altercation. He caused soldiers to die. There is a difference, and no one would fault them if they weren't directly affected.

That is a valid way to look at it, though it really comes down to DM judgment at this point: did they die because they happened to be soldiers and any soldiers would have gone out with him to die in this fashion? Or did they die because they were HIS loyal soldiers, and thus others might be less eager to be in his chosen group to go out and do things because they might die?

So you're very much back to the DM's discretion at this point, since the case is too muddy with too many considerations for anybody but the DM to make that call.

[johnbragg]

That is a valid way to look at it, though it really comes down to DM judgment at this point: did they die because they happened to be soldiers and any soldiers would have gone out with him to die in this fashion? Or did they die because they were HIS loyal soldiers, and thus others might be less eager to be in his chosen group to go out and do things because they might die?


Based on OP's later comments, they died because the DM dropped a surprise 9th-level spellcaster on them.

If there was reason to expect 5th level spells (like flame strike), then the commander it at least somewhat at fault. But I'm not sure there was any reason to expect heavy artillery to just show up and start throwing mid-level spells at 1st level mooks.

[Telonius]

To my mind, the "caused the deaths of followers" clause is for things like Vader force-choking anyone who fails him, or Dr. Evil dropping one of his board members into the tank of sharks with laser beams on their heads. Directly causing death, or callously putting followers in a position where death is near-certain. (Stuff like, "Go clean up the dragon fewmets... I don't care if the dragon is still in the pit, you have your orders!") Losing soldiers in battle probably wouldn't cause it on its own, but if you've made a particularly famous tactical blunder (ordering a near-suicidal charge against a heavily fortified position, having a particularly heavy casualty rate) that could do it too.

[Batcathat]

I find myself flipping back and forth on the issue. At first I felt pretty strongly that simply losing followers in combat shouldn't qualify as causing the death of them but some of the arguments made in this thread made me unsure.

However, I still think I'll land on saying the OP shouldn't get the negative modifier. If that was the intent, it seems reasonable that the designers would've written "Losing other followers" or "Followers dying on your watch" or something like that. But since they wrote "Caused the death of other followers" I feel like it should be something more intentional or at least more negligent.

(All of the above is obviously only a not-particulary-qualified guess).

[Ashtagon]

If you're 6th level and up, just about any encounter that is level appropriate for you will be virtually suicidal for your 1st level followers. At that level, it is completely reasonable to assume that any encounter might include an NPC with access to fireball, resulting in almost guaranteed mass kill of all your 1st level followers. As such, bringing them along with you is being careless with their lives. The first time this happens, that -1 penalty is entirely justified - provided there are survivors who live to tell the tale.

So what use is that army of mooks that comes with Leadership?

They are good for crafting. They can make for an intelligence network. Employ them in your castle, saving on wages. They can carry messages on a fast horse. On instruction with a sending spell, they can activate a magic item or other triggered enchantment for you which is in your castle. They can even answer your mail.

[Kyutaru]

What if the order was...? "Engage the blighter... but be careful!"

Is it still the paladin's fault if they weren't careful? :smalltongue:

[Brenden1k]

I'm not sure you understand the nature of all out war. If they were successfully able to repel invaders and cause enough harm that they were left alone and ended the war, that would be success. You have to have men put their lives on the line to defend the walls. You have to have them exposed in order to kill others.



The danger of winning such a war is that one is left unprepared for the next one, good if it was the extreme event, unacceptable if the next war starts Tuesday. if such wars are common, bet some people would be wondering if surrender or retreat is a better idea. In the end it depends on the situation. Were the losses necessary and worth it. The sheer amount of losses can have a chilling effect even if people think the losses are worth it they still be wondering if there the next loss who is worth it.


In the end it a good option when one needs to only win once, unacceptable if one needs to win twice, so was it a once in a life time threat?

[Max Caysey]

If you're 6th level and up, just about any encounter that is level appropriate for you will be virtually suicidal for your 1st level followers. At that level, it is completely reasonable to assume that any encounter might include an NPC with access to fireball, resulting in almost guaranteed mass kill of all your 1st level followers. As such, bringing them along with you is being careless with their lives. The first time this happens, that -1 penalty is entirely justified - provided there are survivors who live to tell the tale.

So what use is that army of mooks that comes with Leadership?

They are good for crafting. They can make for an intelligence network. Employ them in your castle, saving on wages. They can carry messages on a fast horse. On instruction with a sending spell, they can activate a magic item or other triggered enchantment for you which is in your castle. They can even answer your mail.

They are good for what ever makes sense in the campaign!

I want to stress however, that I did not expect the boss encounter of that session to be there. I thought it would be a place to pick up clues. It was an abandoned logging camp... I brought 1 squat of soldiers... basically to search and comb the area. I did not know in any way that a level 9 Druid would appear!

While it might be reasonable to assume any encounter to be level appropriate, it’s not reasonably to assume any scene to be an encounter! However, previous encounters had been lower level... again making me unprepared for the level and danger of the encounter...

[LurkytheDwarf]

I would say any dangerous mission (whether an investigation, dungeon, or exploration) which requires the PC's direct involvement is inappropriate for followers. You can bring your cohort or mercenary hirelings without a problem, but to bring along followers is to knowingly "cause their death."

I'd also disagree that followers have jobs outside of their service to their leader. It specifically says "they depend on the PC they follow to equip them and keep them fed." If you're already making a living, you don't require the PC for food.

Going back to the original purpose of followers from previous editions, they are there to manage and watch over the PC's stronghold. An area carved out and made safe by the PC's adventures and for which they've set up a base of operations. The followers are attracted to the PC because of the safety of such a place in the harsh wilderness of a D&D setting.

In 3rd Edition, this can be impractical because of the need to spend 9/10ths of your gold on ever-better magic items. So it's very difficult to have such a stronghold or even a business (like an inn) without the DM handing it out as a quest reward. Also, the structure of most campaigns is radically different from when the game began. With far more adventure happening in much narrower windows of time. To replace a follower you caused the death of could take a year in-game time. Many campaigns (even the most famous adventure paths) barely cover that much time.

Still, stronghold-tenders are pretty much what followers are intended to be; that's why the rule is optional, it's there for a specific type of campaign. Either way, they are supposed to remain far from the front lines of the current campaign—be it managing/guarding your businesses in a large city or farming the lands around your manor house deep in a civilized barony. That isn't to say that should you be attacked at home while relaxing during adventures, your household guard shouldn't come to your defense. If they die like that in the line-of-duty, even if it's because you've made enemies/let a bad guy escape that one time, then it's not the PC's fault.

In the OP's case, I would say those soldiers with him could not even be his followers. A professional soldier serving in a kingdom's army is not a PC's follower, because followers rely on the PC for food. These warriors were already paid by the king; they're closer to be his followers than the Warlords.

[Darg]

The danger of winning such a war is that one is left unprepared for the next one, good if it was the extreme event, unacceptable if the next war starts Tuesday. if such wars are common, bet some people would be wondering if surrender or retreat is a better idea. In the end it depends on the situation. Were the losses necessary and worth it. The sheer amount of losses can have a chilling effect even if people think the losses are worth it they still be wondering if there the next loss who is worth it.


In the end it a good option when one needs to only win once, unacceptable if one needs to win twice, so was it a once in a life time threat?

In history, such events happened quite often when you manage to repel a force 3-5 times larger than your own. You have to also understand that unless you are a super power, you generally don't have a very large army. We are talking a standing army of around 10,000 for every 500,000 citizens (not including non citizens) in times of peace. There are obvious variations based on value of trade, likelihood of threats, etc. Most of the time you wouldn't want to conscript untrained civilians (generally a liability with low morale and loyalty) that takes away from your human capital that allows your nation to function. Not to mention that it takes months of preparations to move large amounts of soldiers. This means you have some time to train more soldiers, make diplomatic movements, or possibly surrender to more favorable terms (like not beheading you for wanting to not be executed in the first place).

I don't think many people enjoy paying higher taxes to add on a 10-30% tribute of the nation's income, goods, and food.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The actual tactical command was given the the level 3, who is the squat commander (Sergeant).

And if I ever hear a mercenary commander shift the blame to a sergeant like that, yeah, it's going to make me a little harder to recruit. Blaming the enemy is one thing, but blaming the guy relaying his orders is low. And my stance on being recruited by this guy is not going to change until at the very least he's willing to admit to his share of the blame.

The explanations people give in this thread sound pretty reasonable. Your PC is a lawful evil leader looking for soldiers that will obey orders to maybe not lay down their lives but surely take big risks with them even if other choices could have been made, like the PC covering their retreat and coming back the next day with all of their followers. He's not a horrible monster of a boss, handing out masterwork equipment was a nice touch, but compared to say a good paladin PC who recruits people so he can school them in the arts of diplomacy and gardening while he valiantly defends them from every threat, he's probably going to have a slightly harder time looking for help. Try the seedy bar. Maybe offer some money.

And from a gaming perspective: leadership is probably the most broken feat in the game. There are some minor mechanics to balance it out a little bit, just accept those.

[Ashtagon]

They are good for what ever makes sense in the campaign!

I want to stress however, that I did not expect the boss encounter of that session to be there. I thought it would be a place to pick up clues. It was an abandoned logging camp... I brought 1 squat of soldiers... basically to search and comb the area. I did not know in any way that a level 9 Druid would appear!

While it might be reasonable to assume any encounter to be level appropriate, it’s not reasonably to assume any scene to be an encounter! However, previous encounters had been lower level... again making me unprepared for the level and danger of the encounter...

Certainly they are good for anything that makes sense in the campaign. But by RAW, if you take them into an encounter that is level-appropriate for your PC, you're basically exposing them to suicidal levels of danger, which is good for a Leadership penalty first time it causes significant casualties that get reported back home.

Now, to be sure, you didn't know that the boss would be in this particular encounter. You did know that, four times per adventuring day on average, level-appropriate for the PC (ie suicidally dangerous for your mook followers) encounters would happen. Asking followers to face nigh suicidal odds four times daily is unreasonable, even if "face" is merely "loose arrows from afar", since that's still within fireball range. And the orders were essentially "engage", not "run for your lives!", which does nothing to mitigate the problem.

I repeat: First time they are present with you at a level-inappropriate (for them) encounter and your orders are not essentially "run away while I provide cover", and they sustain significant casualties, you get the penalty. All because you exposed them needlessly to unreasonable levels of danger that caused their deaths.

[Berenger]

Well, yeah, that's the problem with a system where a person can be a competent and well-equipped combatant and, at the same time, a total liability in combat because it's really a wacky superheroes game masquerading as something else. Acknowledging this ingame may add an undesired farcical touch when even a low to midlevel knight has to tell his trained and loyal men-at-arms to that they are, with all due respect, worthless fragile eggshells and he "feels in his bones" that trouble will surely come in the form of four encounters mystically scaled to his personal combat prowess and they can't help him because he is somehow immune to death from an arrow to his throat while they are not. Because, when the knight was level three, all the bad-dudes-in-shabby-robes-accompanied-by-a-wolf were also level three, but these no longer exist while he is around - instead they're somehow all level thirteen now and the knight knows that.

In reality and non-superheroic fiction, bringing your armed professional soldiers to aid and guard you is the only sane and reasonable decision for a knight or lord. In D&D-land, it's basically criminal neglect of those poor hapless suckers under your protection because invisible numbers and metagame considerations say so. So the answer to "When have I caused the death of my followers?" requires an honest anwer to the question "To what extent are the PC and NPC in this setting aware of the vast and artifical power disparities invisible to their naked eyes?".

[Max Caysey]

I would say any dangerous mission (whether an investigation, dungeon, or exploration) which requires the PC's direct involvement is inappropriate for followers. You can bring your cohort or mercenary hirelings without a problem, but to bring along followers is to knowingly "cause their death."

So any time I'm near them I'm knowingly endanger them to the point that its my fault if they die within my vicinity? Is that what you're saying? Because that pretty much directly contradicts the worded "Caused the death of other followers"... or from the DMG: "If the leader is to blame for the deaths..." It says also that a clever leader can use them as scouts or guards. On the mission I brought them on that was exactly what they did... they scouted for clues and guarded me.

If your version were correct, it would have said: If any follower dies in your custody/ under your command... that's not what is being said tho... not literally.


And if I ever hear a mercenary commander shift the blame to a sergeant like that, yeah, it's going to make me a little harder to recruit. Blaming the enemy is one thing, but blaming the guy relaying his orders is low. And my stance on being recruited by this guy is not going to change until at the very least he's willing to admit to his share of the blame.

The explanations people give in this thread sound pretty reasonable. Your PC is a lawful evil leader looking for soldiers that will obey orders to maybe not lay down their lives but surely take big risks with them even if other choices could have been made, like the PC covering their retreat and coming back the next day with all of their followers. He's not a horrible monster of a boss, handing out masterwork equipment was a nice touch, but compared to say a good paladin PC who recruits people so he can school them in the arts of diplomacy and gardening while he valiantly defends them from every threat, he's probably going to have a slightly harder time looking for help. Try the seedy bar. Maybe offer some money.

And from a gaming perspective: leadership is probably the most broken feat in the game. There are some minor mechanics to balance it out a little bit, just accept those.

While I agree that it can be broken, the way I use it is not to have hordes of mooks craft tons of items for me or feed me with spells levels in my own circle magic ritual... I'm using them as mundane guards, scouts, soldiers, etc...

In responce to "a mercenary commander shifting blame" I'm just saying that I dirive my command structure from NATO. Hence there is a squat commander who sub-tactically has the command on the front line (because I the platoon commander cannot be at all places at once)... therefore I mentioned that. I basically have a commander as well - the lord for whom we work - who has the operational command. I'm not shifting blame im just explaining that we employ a "mission command" C2 structure.


Certainly they are good for anything that makes sense in the campaign. But by RAW, if you take them into an encounter that is level-appropriate for your PC, you're basically exposing them to suicidal levels of danger, which is good for a Leadership penalty first time it causes significant casualties that get reported back home.

Now, to be sure, you didn't know that the boss would be in this particular encounter. You did know that, four times per adventuring day on average, level-appropriate for the PC (ie suicidally dangerous for your mook followers) encounters would happen. Asking followers to face nigh suicidal odds four times daily is unreasonable, even if "face" is merely "loose arrows from afar", since that's still within fireball range. And the orders were essentially "engage", not "run for your lives!", which does nothing to mitigate the problem.

Really, 4 times per day my DM is supposed to plant an encounter? Where does it say that? I've never heard that before! - and playing 3.X for 18 years, not once - with any of the DMs I've had - has this ever happened unless we were clearing out a dungeon...

Clearly the feat does not - and should not - take into account what meta-game knowledge I might or might not have...or assume that a DM runs the game in any set way... that's just silly!



I repeat: First time they are present with you at a level-inappropriate (for them) encounter and your orders are not essentially "run away while I provide cover", and they sustain significant casualties, you get the penalty. All because you exposed them needlessly to unreasonable levels of danger that caused their deaths.

And I repeat, thats not what the modifier says: It says "caused the death of..." not "it at any time you are attacked and you don't immediately order the retreat you are the cause the to die, even though they got sniped... " I wpuld argue that its the character, not the player that has to cause the death of... I would argue that he did not, since he acted as any battlefield commander would... Had he on the other had known that a dangerous blighter had taken the camp... and still sent forth his men... that would be different!


Well, yeah, that's the problem with a system where a person can be a competent and well-equipped combatant and, at the same time, a total liability in combat because it's really a wacky superheroes game masquerading as something else. Acknowledging this ingame may add an undesired farcical touch when even a low to midlevel knight has to tell his trained and loyal men-at-arms to that they are, with all due respect, worthless fragile eggshells and he "feels in his bones" that trouble will surely come in the form of four encounters mystically scaled to his personal combat prowess and they can't help him because he is somehow immune to death from an arrow to his throat while they are not. Because, when the knight was level three, all the bad-dudes-in-shabby-robes-accompanied-by-a-wolf were also level three, but these no longer exist while he is around - instead they're somehow all level thirteen now and the knight knows that.

In reality and non-superheroic fiction, bringing your armed professional soldiers to aid and guard you is the only sane and reasonable decision for a knight or lord. In D&D-land, it's basically criminal neglect of those poor hapless suckers under your protection because invisible numbers and metagame considerations say so. So the answer to "When have I caused the death of my followers?" requires an honest anwer to the question "To what extent are the PC and NPC in this setting aware of the vast and artifical power disparities invisible to their naked eyes?".

This really made me laugh... :smallbiggrin:

[Ashtagon]

If you read through the DMG, it says four encounters per day (or rather, that each encounter should use up 25% of the party's replenishable resources), which on average should be level-appropriate for the PCs at their current level.

And if you do the maths, you'll also note that it requires an average of 13 1/3 level-appropriate encounters to gain a level. Which means you'll level up on average twice a week, or nine weeks to go from level 1 to level 20.

Of course it's a superheroes game disguised with fantasy trappings.

[Vaern]

Ask your DM. Personally I'd say that "causing the death of followers" must be intentional, or the result of such poor judgment that it borders on being intentional.
If you're using your followers to crew a ship for transportation so your party can make its way around an archipelago setting and your ship is attacked by a kraken that wipes out half your crew, for example, I personally wouldn't penalize you for that because it's not something you had much or any control over. If you outfit a crew with level 1-2 followers with the intent of hunting the kraken and it wipes out half your crew, I would penalize you for that because you deliberately went out seeking a challenge knowing full well that your followers were disastrously underleveled for it.

[Telok]

Honestly equipping 1 hd guards and scouts with masterwork weapons, decent armor, and healing potions is treating them very well when compared to what they were probably getting before they signed up. Being ambushed by a mid-range supervillan and his enhanced terror pet while on a basic scouting mission is a bit of an extraordinary circumstance. Losing 3 npcs from a scouting party when a 5th level spell gets dropped, the maximum firepower that the supervillan has available, isn't something that's unusual in D&D land. In fact you're probably happy it wasn't something luke a widened fireball or empowered spike growth that hit the entire group.

It's not intentionally getting anyone killed. It's not cruel or unusual for soldiers to go scouting. Unexpected 5th level spells hitting you isn't gross negligence. You didn't lose the majority of your troops (half of the scouting party, but not of your total troops).

The only way I'd assess a penalty is if you'd known there was a hostile 9th level caster in the area and that you stood a good (better than 50/50) chance of fighting him before you set out.

[Kyutaru]

Honestly equipping 1 hd guards and scouts with masterwork weapons, decent armor, and healing potions is treating them very well when compared to what they were probably getting before they signed up. Being ambushed by a mid-range supervillan and his enhanced terror pet while on a basic scouting mission is a bit of an extraordinary circumstance. Losing 3 npcs from a scouting party when a 5th level spell gets dropped, the maximum firepower that the supervillan has available, isn't something that's unusual in D&D land. In fact you're probably happy it wasn't something luke a widened fireball or empowered spike growth that hit the entire group.

It's not intentionally getting anyone killed. It's not cruel or unusual for soldiers to go scouting. Unexpected 5th level spells hitting you isn't gross negligence. You didn't lose the majority of your troops (half of the scouting party, but not of your total troops).

The only way I'd assess a penalty is if you'd known there was a hostile 9th level caster in the area and that you stood a good (better than 50/50) chance of fighting him before you set out.
The way I understand the penalty, people looking to work for you have a low life expectancy. It discourages future applicants. It's not about cruelty or carelessness or how well equipped you are.

Soldiers go in, soldiers don't go home. The retirement plan is a lie.

[Segev]

Whether it counts when they're also soldiers paid to do this thing probably comes down to this: How does it look for YOUR reputation?

Stepping back from that question for a moment, one way to look at it is to ask whether the dead guys were there because they were your Followers, or because they were paid soldiers. Could it have been any set of soldiers, or were they the soldiers following you because they believed in you as a leader?

That said, however, that's only a very rough question, because it still comes down to a lot of circumstance.

This is, going back to my first line in this post, about your reputation as a leader. Does the deaths of those guys make others less likely to want to follow you, specifically, in the future? Because that's what the -1 penalty to your Leadership score represents: people having to ask themselves whether risking their lives is worth joining your cause.

So, did they die because they were your followers, and you led your followers to this danger? Or did they die because you and they were both soldiers, and the fact that they were your followers was at best secondary to them being there?

This still is sticky: if your followers are your unit in a larger military, and you could have people there who aren't your followers, but are loyal soldiers, then you're probably using the "followers" mechanic to represent those whose loyalty to you exceeds their loyalty to "the job" or even "the country" (or at the very least sees no clash between loyalty to you and loyalty to their own higher ideals of patriotism et al, and would side with you against "the country" if only because they'd be confident that whoever claimed to represent "the country" were 'the real traitors' or something like that...but I digress), and thus if you gain a rep for your command losing guys in excess of what's "normal" for the military structure you're in, you will likely have fewer men who are loyal to you in the sense of being Followers rather than merely loyal to the job/military/country/king who follow you because you're their commanding officer.

So, it's circumstantial. Did these guys die because they were your Followers, or did they die in a way that nobody would blame "following you, specifically" for?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

It says also that a clever leader can use them as scouts or guards. On the mission I brought them on that was exactly what they did... they scouted for clues and guarded me.
They were guarding the one person for whom the encounter was level appropriate, protecting him from harm, because his life was obviously more important than theirs.

I'm not saying that's not a valid tactic or a realistic tactic. But from the way you describe the encounter it does feel like one way or another they were either intentionally or through an error in judgement sent into a situation where it was almost to be expected at least one of them would die. Most guards guard a town, or a treasure chamber, or sleeping PC's, or something else that needs guarding at that time.

From the way you defend your actions here it also sounds like this wasn't an exception. You do not hold the safety of these men/women in the highest regard. You could have sent them to the back to engage from long range (<-if something like this is what you did and the dm decided to have the opponent ignore the person killing him to run after them and get some petty revenge kills then I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, I would not blame the commander for those deaths), you could have retreated and come back to set a clever ambush with more men, you could have valiantly leapt into the fray while yelling "save yourselves!". There were several priorities to weigh against each other and your character chose to lend more weight to "accomplish the objective as fast as possible while keeping the risk to myself within reasonable parameters", and in order to do that exposed the soldiers to quite a large risk of death. I wouldn't say it's weird that that style of management doesn't get the word on the street going that you're such an awesome guy to work for. It feels like a valid interpretation of that rule to me.


In responce to "a mercenary commander shifting blame" I'm just saying that I dirive my command structure from NATO. Hence there is a squat commander who sub-tactically has the command on the front line (because I the platoon commander cannot be at all places at once)... therefore I mentioned that. I basically have a commander as well - the lord for whom we work - who has the operational command. I'm not shifting blame im just explaining that we employ a "mission command" C2 structure.
Unless your DM was controlling the sergeant and made him go against the order you had given the sergeant beforehand that distinction is pretty academic. At the very best it barely doesn't count as the character shifting blame, but it's definitely still you as the player shifting blame.

Although it does open up a clever way to atone in universe. Was the sergeant reprimanded for his actions? Punished? Fired? Talked to after which he voluntarily went to see the surviving soldiers and the families of the deceased to express his regret and sympathy, even if he didn't admit guilt or promise to do things differently in the future? Or is he acting like a typical loyal henchman of a lawful evil commander who puts both timely achievement of objectives and his own safety ahead of the lives of his men as if they were nothing but pawns in some tactical game?

[Berenger]

Perhaps we should consider the options the commander had. „Break ranks and scatter!“ is hardly a good survival strategy when the enemy forces include a superpowered predator (e.g. a midlevel druids wolf companion) that can outrun, track and kill those guys one by one long before they reach a safe place.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Perhaps we should consider the options the commander had. „Break ranks and scatter!“ is hardly a good survival strategy when the enemy forces include a superpowered predator (e.g. a midlevel druids wolf companion) that can outrun, track and kill those guys one by one long before they reach a safe place.

Fair point. That's kind of the core of what the whole dilemma revolves around: were there in fact options that were less dangerous for the followers?

[Ashtagon]

Perhaps we should consider the options the commander had. „Break ranks and scatter!“ is hardly a good survival strategy when the enemy forces include a superpowered predator (e.g. a midlevel druids wolf companion) that can outrun, track and kill those guys one by one long before they reach a safe place.

Whether it be a superpowered predator (animal companion), wizard with a fireball (or heck, even a sleep spell for level 1 mooks), fighter with great cleave, ranger using his longbow as a makeshift submachinegun, or even just a classic monster encounter, the problem remains the same. Anything that qualifies as a level-appropriate encounter for the PC will be a suicide festival for the mooks.

About the only situation where I think you could reasonably use your mooks in combat is as part of a campaign in which mass combat rules are being used, and a gentlemans agreement with the GM that PCs face off with level-appropriate NPCs, and mooks face off with level-appropriate regiments of mooks.

[Segev]

I think analyzing whether the PC made the right choice or not, while perhaps helpful, doesn't really address the concern over whether the penalty applies. The penalty isn't punishment to the player for choices he makes with his character. I mean, it CAN be, if the player has his character callously throw away followers' lives like they're numbers on a statpage. But that's not its narrative role.

Its narrative role is about the PC's reputation as a leader.

Did losing these followers in this fight create a reputation that his men wind up dead? Does he already have such a reputation? If not, how many more of these incidents would it take to create such a reputation?


If, for example, he draws his followers strictly from this larger army of soldiers, and the death rate following him is no higher than the death rate in any other unit/sub-group in the army, then he probably doesn't deserve the penalty. Captain Bob's men aren't dying more often than Captain Joan's men, and Captain Bob is a charismatic fellow who earns the love and trust of his men. There's no special rep for getting his men killed as long as his men aren't dying any more frequently than Joan's or anybody else's.

If, on the other hand, he draws his followers from the general populace and then inducts them into the army, he probably does get a rep for his followers dying, because becoming his follower means joining the army, where people expect a certain amount of...attrition.

[Darg]

I think the the issue starts from the fact that the leadership feat is not meant for creating an army. Think of it more like a religious cult. Only your cohort is meant to be a combat companion or a sort of squire.

While this requires DM approval, you don't actually need the leadership feat to build an army or have a leadership position in said army. Soldiers in an army are not your followers by way of the leadership feat. Soldiers get paid by money. Followers get paid by your presence and guidance.

The question comes down to this: Did the soldiers sign up to be soldiers in a military outfit of their own volition (not compelled by you) and were they part of your squad due to orders of authority not derived from feelings of wanting to be near you? If they were, I wouldn't even count them as your followers unless they would not hesitate to desert if you left.

[Kyutaru]

Soldiers in an army are not your followers by way of the leadership feat. Soldiers get paid by money. Followers get paid by your presence and guidance.

Gosh really? In old D&D followers took a portion of the treasure. So if you had tons of followers you were losing half your loot or more.

[tomandtish]

Gosh really? In old D&D followers took a portion of the treasure. So if you had tons of followers you were losing half your loot or more.

True. Of course in old D&D you were getting one XP for every gp of treasure you did keep, so it probably worked out.

[rel]

On the one hand, leadership is a very potent feat so I'm happy to rule against it.
On the other hand, the full casters can easily get hold of resource free everloyal (or close enough) minions so if the character in question is a muggle I'm inclined to be generous.

Now, I don't normally use leadership at my table but NPC followers are a thing.

I would rule as follows:

If you do something particularly egregious like using your followers to spring traps, unnecessarily sending them into great danger or abandoning them to die you get the penalty.

Further, if through incompetence or circumstance you consistently lose followers you will eventually get the penalty.

For the OP's example, I'd say you're fine for now but if the next 2 missions turn out the same way, word gets around; people tend to die on this guys watch...