Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Well, Lieutenants are made by the Ceremony of Lieutenancy, I thought, and not from being a cohort. While, it is logical that a cohort would be a more trusted Lieutenant, it doesnt not mean that every Lieutenant must be a cohort.
    And that section in Chap 5 refers back to Chap 8 for more details on Lts. And, again, I have said that Chap 8 was missing the statement that Lts follow the rules for cohorts.

    Using the 2nd ed system Lts were 'uber' henchmen and counted against the maximum number of henchmen that a character could have. I find it really almost impossible to believe that someone could so utterly miss the direct corellary here from 2nd ed to 3rd ed (and now 3.5).



    QUOTE
    Again the Revised chap 1 specified for military cohorts that the total GB muster value of the units in a military cohort may never exceed the cohort level appropriate for your leadership score. What this means is pretty much the same thing you are talking about, that the total value of all units counted as military cohorts is not to exceed the cohort level (i.e., starting level) appropriate to your leadership score. Since this was an addition to the Leadership feat in the PHB/DMG this is an except to the standard rule for cohorts.




    Now then, it seems like there is a major inconsistancy here... If you can hire an infinite number of cohorts why can you only hire up to 17GB worth of military units as cohorts? Heheh, to put a limit to it then really shows that we recognize the problems that come with it and we just put on a bandaid over a broken limb.

    Actually, if you think about it... why should there be any GB limit on the military unit cohorts... they can be made up of cohorts whose character level could be up to 17th! Thats a hell of a lot better than your average military unit full of 1st-3rd level warriors. Really, that just doesnt make sense then... Imagine an army consisting only of 17th level characters!!! They would wipe the floor with any regular, veteran ect unit. And by the current rules to no limit to cohorts you could easily have such an army...
    I don't know, since military cohorts are very much a step up from the standard cohorts a difference in application is very appropriate.

    Seems like the only way to logically justify the minimum on the military cohort is to revise limit on cohorts provided by the Leadership feat. Maybe state that you can only have a number of cohorts whose total EL does not exceed your current allowed cohort level.
    Or we could just drop the whole military cohort issue. It wasn't in 2nd ed. Yes I can just delete that benefit then things will be much more clearly balanced I think. {insert sarcasm}



    QUOTE
    A suggestion regarding Lead: Why not allow a +1 bonus to a character's Leadership score per 5 ranks in Lead? This would mean competent leaders would gain more bodyguards and possibly stronger military cohorts than an unskilled one (especially if allowing full military cohort values as listed above).


    That's a cool idea.
    Except that it defies how things work. Feats give bonuses to skills and not vice versa. So technically the Leadership feat should instead give a bonus to the Lead skill.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #22
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Things to keep in mind concerning cohorts and the fact that they don't take away from the exp of the party.

    They do add to the EL of the party, so the party will have greater challenges.

    More cohorts means less opportunities for other players to participate. This could cause gaming issues due to resentment because of reduced involvment. This is something that is pointed out in the DMG.

    The exact makeup and availability of cohorts is always controlled by the DM, so if the DM thinks its balanced to have a character have many many cohorts then that is what the DM wants to deal with. If the DM thinks it is not well balanced then he controls the availability of the cohorts.
    Duane Eggert

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I'm all for removing Military Cohorts from the basic Leadership feat, and instead pinning them to the Great Leader feat.

    This comes with a caveat though. The Great Leader feat should have as prerequisites: Lead 9+, Warcraft 9+ and Leadership.
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    94
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    That would work decently Athos.

    The earliest a single classed could get this would be an 8th level noble. If this is taken as the noble bonus feat. If it is also in the bonus fighter feats (possible reasoning) they could also get it at 8th level.

    If someone multiclasses something for maximum effect like 6th (something else) and 1st noble (or fighter) they could get it at 7th level.

    The character has definately been around long enough to have fame spread far and wide.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    I think requiring 2 feats for military cohorts is a bit extreme. Great Leader already has quite a few benefits if Lead becomes the primary skill for law holdings, and the +2 bonus to Leadership isn't insignificant either.

    I really liked the variant of Leadership for military cohorts as it was written in the BRCS, and honestly don't see it as problematic in and of itself, if it is written to specifically address the limit on GB worth of mustering.

    Osprey

  6. #26
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    Things to keep in mind concerning cohorts and the fact that they don't take away from the exp of the party.

    They do add to the EL of the party, so the party will have greater challenges.
    Which is exactly the problem. Higher CR monsters/challenges means more XP for PC's with cohorts than for those without.

    Again: a 10th level PC with 6x 8th level cohorts could handle much higher CR's of monsters, thus earning the PC much more XP than he would get otherwise.

    You speak of "precious feat slots." Well, tell me, is Improved Crit or Weapon Focus or +2 to a couple of skills going to empower a PC in any way close to how this feat would? I don't think so.

    More cohorts means less opportunities for other players to participate. This could cause gaming issues due to resentment because of reduced involvment. This is something that is pointed out in the DMG.

    The exact makeup and availability of cohorts is always controlled by the DM, so if the DM thinks its balanced to have a character have many many cohorts then that is what the DM wants to deal with. If the DM thinks it is not well balanced then he controls the availability of the cohorts.
    These are very poor arguments for justifying a game mechanic. Mechanics are in place so that a DM doesn't have to make up his or her own limitations or house rules. DM judgement should be invoked when the mechanics don't cover an issue, which should be the odd loopholes. Likewise, good roleplaying should flow naturally from a good set of mechanics, rather than forcing a DM and players to set their own limitations on the rules because the rules don't set any inherent limitations. Invoking DM judgement in a core rules set really means "we can't write a good mechanic for this, so we're leaving it up to you." It's not as if DM's aren't equally free to ignore written limitations on core rules anyways. But if it's written as a rule, at least there is a guideline present.

    When 3.5 worked so hard to stomp down on what was considered too powerful or unbalanced, such as powering down a large number of spells, why would they leave such an obviously unbalanced feat wide open to power abuse?

    I stand by my claim: this feat having no limit on cohorts is BAD, BAD, BAD. One cohort plus followers seems reasonable for the power of a single feat. Unlimited numbers skew it horrendously.

  7. #27
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    When it gets right down to it the Leadership feat is a highly unbalancing

    game mechanic that is really only justified by the style of the campaign as

    a whole and the DM`s rulings on how that feat is handled. In simplistic

    terms, is the campaign to be one in which players take on the role of two or

    more characters, or is it to be the more traditional 1:1?



    I`ve always favored the former--and it is one of the things that attracts me

    to the BR setting in the first place. If one examines the domain structure,

    the followers and nature of rulership in BR the whole domain level of play

    is really an extended version of what was in previous editions of the game a

    rather haphazard system of rulership, leadership and followers.



    So what`s the point? Well, I think the problem here is that the fundamental

    attempt to incorporate the 3e/3.5 Leadership feat (and extensive feats based

    upon it) into the BR setting is essentially redundant on several levels.

    It`s redundant at the character level because there are skills to replace

    the concept. What`s the point in having the Leadership Score of the

    Leadership feat if one has a Lead skill? Why not just use the Lead skill in

    place of it and have the feat interact with the skill system in a way that

    might be more analogous to how Track interacts with Survival in 3.5?



    At the large scale combat level there already is a system of

    soldier/hirelings established, so there`s not really a big need to give

    regents access to that sort of thing through feats.



    When it comes to the domain level, lieutenants have their own system of

    rulership and participation in the domain level, and there are means of

    acquiring them (a whole domain action) that have nothing to do with the

    Leadership feat. Plus, for all intents and purposes all civilians in a

    province are effectively the followers of a regent who controls that

    province or even just holdings in it. Their relationship to the regent is

    probably better defined by the specific type and number of holdings that the

    regent controls in that province than it is by the Leadership feat.



    In abstract terms, the Leadership feat is a way of performing for PCs at the

    adventure level of play the kinds of things that already exist in the BR

    domain level. The feat description in the DMG, of course, has some prose

    that emphasize the DM`s (already existing) rule that he can disallow it if

    he wishes, but I`d suggest that in BR it should be dropped not because it

    imbalances the game or isn`t the style of play that a DM might want to run,

    but because it is already established in most ways by existing, domain level

    mechanics.



    Instead, a better way to handle the situation is to simply define how many

    cohorts/followers a regent gets through the domain level of play, how they

    are acquired, and most importantly what their participation will be should

    the PC engage in adventure level play.



    Gary

  8. #28
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I'm working on a variant for Chap 8 regarding exp awards for cohorts and Lts. Making it a variant is a way to incorporate the concerns for having numerous Lts/cohorts along with no exp drain happening, and yet not forcing a change to the existing rules. A happy compromise.


    My comment about dropping military cohorts was supposed to be sarcastic to reply to tcharazazel's comments on balance and attempt to drag the two together for an extreme point. I knew it was a popular addition but wanted to get to the point if it caused problems then it could alwyas be dropped and eliminate them. Restricting the number of militarty cohorts available makes sense since they are much more powerful than the standard cohort (we are talking about the equivalent of 200 men) and it was an addition to the core rules for BR.
    Duane Eggert

  9. #29
    I'd say drop the military cohort fromthe leadership feat, because its not logical to only allow a certain number of cohorts when the feat itself does not put any limit on the number of cohorts. The example was extreem to show how extreemly unbalancing it can be and how you can raise an unlimited suppy of cohorts to make your armies.

    However, I also like Athos idea of incorperating the military cohort into the Great Leader feat. This way we would not have to put limits on the Leadership feat, which we would obviously do if we limit the number of military cohorts.
    "Who was the first that forged the deadly blade? Of rugged steel his savage soul was made." --Tibullus

    "Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum." --Vegetius

    "Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war." --Homer

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.