Number of followers - class by class - unfair?

[Halaster Blackcloak]

I stole this from a thread I started at Mortality. Tweaked it a bit, but mainly the same post. Fighters and clerics get an insane number of followers compared to other classes. It seems a bit unfair.

Looking at 2E first (since I'm more familiar with it than 1E), fighters get tons of followers. If he rolls well, he can get up to 151 followers, with one of them being 7th level, 30 of them being 1st level, and 120 being 0th level. At the worst, he gets a 5th level follower, and 70 other followers (10 being 1st level), all armed and ready to fight.

Compare that to other classes.

Fighters get up to 151 followers
Paladins get no followers - 0.
Rangers get 2d6 (7 on average), most of them animals.
Wizards get no followers - 0.
Clerics get 20 - 200 followers, for an average of 110 followers.
Druids get just 3, but only after hitting 12th level, not 9th.
Thieves get 4d6 followers for an average of 14 of them.
Bards get 10d6 or an average of 35.

So we have a situation where paladins and wizards get no followers, druids get just 3 (and even then only after attaining 3 levels higher than the level where everyone else gets them), rangers get on average 7 (and those are mostly animals), thieves are a little luckier...they get 14 on average, but clerics and fighters get into the hundreds! On average, fighters get 111, clerics 110. The next best is the bard with a third the number.

In 1E it's a bit different, but there barbarians can call hordes of up to 2,000 members (at 11th level)!
Even at 8th level he can call up to 1,000 barbarians.

Why would a super successful, highly charismatic paladin not attract followers? Or a powerful, famous wizard not attract apprentices? And now that I think about it, it makes more sense for druids to gain animals as followers than it does rangers.

Thinking about it once again, it seems a bit...off.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Looking at another old post, let's discuss barbarians. My god, they are insanely powered! Not the class itself. The only Unearthed Arcana class that was truly overpowered was the cavalier, who was in essence a 3E class in a 1E setting. But when you look at the barbarian's ability to summon a horde- wow!

A barbarian can summon as many barbarians in a horde as he has xp divided by 1,000. Ok, so an 11th level barbarian can raise an army of 2,000 barbarians. They take a week to gather. They must have a stated purpose, i.e. "Destroy Waterdeep". The horde can be kept together for as many weeks as the barbarian leader has levels, i.e. an 11th level barbarian can hold the horde together for 11 weeks to achieve the stated goal. It can be kept together longer due to high CHA, or offers of great treasure, etc. It says 1-2 weeks at most, but imagine the havoc 2,000 barbarians can wreak in 13 weeks! That's over three months!

The caller also gains, in addition to the regular horde, 2 aides, each being 1/2 the caller's level (i.e. the 11th level barbarian would gain 2 5th-level barbarian aides).

In addition to all that, each aide will have two assistants of half their level, i.e. 2nd level (round down). The horde can also include shamans, witch doctors, and clerics.

At 18th level, he could summons 5,500 barbarians, 9 9th-level aides, and 18 4th-level aides. And he could command them for up to 20 weeks. Almost half a year!

That's just insane. It doesn't say anything about how often he can summon them - there is no limit to the number of times he can do this. Now, imagine an 18th level barbarian warlord attacking say Cormyr. Or worse yet, the Dalelands. The devastation would be incredible even if they are eventually defeated!

[garhkal]

I stole this from a thread I started at Mortality. Tweaked it a bit, but mainly the same post. Fighters and clerics get an insane number of followers compared to other classes. It seems a bit unfair.

Looking at 2E first (since I'm more familiar with it than 1E), fighters get tons of followers. If he rolls well, he can get up to 151 followers, with one of them being 7th level, 30 of them being 1st level, and 120 being 0th level. At the worst, he gets a 5th level follower, and 70 other followers (10 being 1st level), all armed and ready to fight.

Compare that to other classes.

Fighters get up to 151 followers
Paladins get no followers - 0.
Rangers get 2d6 (7 on average), most of them animals.
Wizards get no followers - 0.
Clerics get 20 - 200 followers, for an average of 110 followers.
Druids get just 3, but only after hitting 12th level, not 9th.
Thieves get 4d6 followers for an average of 14 of them.
Bards get 10d6 or an average of 35.

So we have a situation where paladins and wizards get no followers, druids get just 3 (and even then only after attaining 3 levels higher than the level where everyone else gets them), rangers get on average 7 (and those are mostly animals), thieves are a little luckier...they get 14 on average, but clerics and fighters get into the hundreds! On average, fighters get 111, clerics 110. The next best is the bard with a third the number.

In 1E it's a bit different, but there barbarians can call hordes of up to 2,000 members (at 11th level)!
Even at 8th level he can call up to 1,000 barbarians.

Why would a super successful, highly charismatic paladin not attract followers? Or a powerful, famous wizard not attract apprentices? And now that I think about it, it makes more sense for druids to gain animals as followers than it does rangers.

Thinking about it once again, it seems a bit...off.

IMO for paladins/wizards its more
A) Paladins have lots of other benefits flat out fighter's don't get. So it wasn't seen as fitting. and
B) for wizards, since they rarely take on apprentices, it made no sense to give them followers..
Rangers were seen as being more woodsy so that's why they get some animal companions.. Bards/thieves have their guilds..

Though the thing I always found fucked up, was FIGHTER's followers, ONLY Served as long as they were paid.. BUT you didn't have to spend the dosh to equip them, SO they were like just getting Hirelings (men at arms), but somewhat at a discount.. BUT PRIESTS get them for free, AND they are fanatically loyal... where a warrior's followers are not.

Looking at another old post, let's discuss barbarians. My god, they are insanely powered! Not the class itself. The only Unearthed Arcana class that was truly overpowered was the cavalier, who was in essence a 3E class in a 1E setting. But when you look at the barbarian's ability to summon a horde- wow!

A barbarian can summon as many barbarians in a horde as he has xp divided by 1,000. Ok, so an 11th level barbarian can raise an army of 2,000 barbarians. They take a week to gather. They must have a stated purpose, i.e. "Destroy Waterdeep". The horde can be kept together for as many weeks as the barbarian leader has levels, i.e. an 11th level barbarian can hold the horde together for 11 weeks to achieve the stated goal. It can be kept together longer due to high CHA, or offers of great treasure, etc. It says 1-2 weeks at most, but imagine the havoc 2,000 barbarians can wreak in 13 weeks! That's over three months!

The caller also gains, in addition to the regular horde, 2 aides, each being 1/2 the caller's level (i.e. the 11th level barbarian would gain 2 5th-level barbarian aides).

In addition to all that, each aide will have two assistants of half their level, i.e. 2nd level (round down). The horde can also include shamans, witch doctors, and clerics.

At 18th level, he could summons 5,500 barbarians, 9 9th-level aides, and 18 4th-level aides. And he could command them for up to 20 weeks. Almost half a year!

That's just insane. It doesn't say anything about how often he can summon them - there is no limit to the number of times he can do this. Now, imagine an 18th level barbarian warlord attacking say Cormyr. Or worse yet, the Dalelands. The devastation would be incredible even if they are eventually defeated!

MY thing on that was WHERE WERE ALL those barbarians coming from?? Most barbarian clans / groups don't evne HAVE a thousand folks (inc women and kids) in them. LET ALONE good enough relations to other clans, to summon them too..
AND How is it they show up, only ONE WEEK after being called, NO MATTER where they are summoned from?
Also WHO THe fuck is feeding them all?

[McDeath]

Paladins are paragons of good and pious to boot I guess. They aren't like the religious zealots of tv. They shun sin and followers are pride. They follow their god and tell others to seek that good god and not them. I guess they're more christ like than christ in some ways. Followers rushing out to do what the paladin intends on doing for the glory of his god makes the paladin look like a typical lord fighter. It tarnishes him. In some ways there is a paradox that the paladin is pridefully doing it in lieu of a holy army. I guess he isn't a dervish.

Mages are secretive and even if we see stories of apprentices and such I guess it is the mage in D&D that decides if an apprentice will be taught in a controlled environment. Still, how can you have an apprentice if none try to follow.

In a crpg like spreadsheet looking at this would suck and each type would attract followers as there are people in all walks of life. Gothy death lovers would seek necromancers. Hippy nature lovers would seek druids. Good natured devout people would seek a higher calling and go towards the paladin like a beacon drawing moths.

Was this ever amended in the various handbooks, later blackbooks like high levels player options, later editions?

[garhkal]

I can't remember if it was a book, or a HR, but i did remember seeing something for mages getting followers, 1d4+1 at level 9, if they build a wizard tower... Apprentices..
Gaining an addtional one every level there after... Once an apprentice hits level 9, they leave...

[Halaster Blackcloak]

McDeath wrote:

Paladins are paragons of good and pious to boot I guess. They aren't like the religious zealots of tv. They shun sin and followers are pride. They follow their god and tell others to seek that good god and not them. I guess they're more christ like than christ in some ways. Followers rushing out to do what the paladin intends on doing for the glory of his god makes the paladin look like a typical lord fighter. It tarnishes him. In some ways there is a paradox that the paladin is pridefully doing it in lieu of a holy army. I guess he isn't a dervish.

You know, that's the single most lucid and logical explanation I've ever heard. I was always looking at it from the viewpoint that paladins are so popular and so charismatic, that he'd naturally attract followers. But what you said seems to make more sense.

Mages are secretive and even if we see stories of apprentices and such I guess it is the mage in D&D that decides if an apprentice will be taught in a controlled environment. Still, how can you have an apprentice if none try to follow.

True, but wizards are also famous/infamous. And like you said, without apprentices, the art dies. So they sorta have to have apprentices. Most of the time, I've had apprentices come to my players' wizard characters, once they hit 9th level and above. It lends so much potential to the story and the game.

In a crpg like spreadsheet looking at this would suck and each type would attract followers as there are people in all walks of life. Gothy death lovers would seek necromancers. Hippy nature lovers would seek druids. Good natured devout people would seek a higher calling and go towards the paladin like a beacon drawing moths.

Dear god, I dread to even imagine it!

Was this ever amended in the various handbooks, later blackbooks like high levels player options, later editions?

Not the black books. As far as the high level stuff, I never used any of it and only ever had one of those books, but nothing I recall.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

I can't remember if it was a book, or a HR, but i did remember seeing something for mages getting followers, 1d4+1 at level 9, if they build a wizard tower... Apprentices..
Gaining an addtional one every level there after... Once an apprentice hits level 9, they leave...

I can't recall that, but my guess (without checking) would be that if it appeared anywhere, it would have been in the Complete Book of Wizards. Though now that you mention it, that does ring a bell. Hmmm.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

I can sort of see the reasons for the different numbers of followers by class.

Fighters become warlords of sorts, so they need a good number of followers and some leveled ones too, to serve as lieutenants, etc.

Thieves would only get a smallish number because how many non-lawful people can you manage at one time, and while remaining secretive? So I guess that makes sense.

Paladins I thought should attract followers (aside from a warhorse), but McDeath's explanation makes it completely understandable why they gain no followers.

Clerics, I like the idea of them getting a lot of followers as they have to establish a church, and religion does attract a lot of people. So that makes sense too.

With rangers and druids, I think druids should get animal followers far more logically than rangers. I get that rangers operate alone, but still - druids are closer to nature and animals than rangers are.

Wizards definitely should get apprentices. I think that was a bad oversight.

Another issue is this - druids when they hit 12th level - gain followers. He gets 3 druid followers, and their level is based on which 12th level druid has the most xp. At 13th level (archdruid), they gain 3 druids of 10th level. At 14th level (grand druid), he gains 3 11th-level druids. At 15th level, he is the Grand Druid and gains 9 druids of various levels who work only for him. Does he retain all his followers, gained from 12th level on? If so, he has 18 druids under him, quite a good number. They never really explain that.

[McDeath]

I was reading a Witch Comic Book 6 years ago and the powerful dark necro witch attracted a few followers. They ended up dead though because they wanted to take shortcuts and the witch's artifacts devoured the apprentices. Don't fuck with master/mistress's stuff.

[garhkal]

Garhkal wrote:

I can't remember if it was a book, or a HR, but i did remember seeing something for mages getting followers, 1d4+1 at level 9, if they build a wizard tower... Apprentices..
Gaining an addtional one every level there after... Once an apprentice hits level 9, they leave...

I can't recall that, but my guess (without checking) would be that if it appeared anywhere, it would have been in the Complete Book of Wizards. Though now that you mention it, that does ring a bell. Hmmm.

Found it in 1e, for the Wu jen of all places.. Though its d4 at 10th... And only replenish once one leaves..

Clerics, I like the idea of them getting a lot of followers as they have to establish a church, and religion does attract a lot of people. So that makes sense too.

I've never liked though, how clerics attract MORE in general, than warrior lords do..
AND unlike the warriors,they don't HAVE TO pay for them, as warriors do.

With rangers and druids, I think druids should get animal followers far more logically than rangers. I get that rangers operate alone, but still - druids are closer to nature and animals than rangers are.

That i agree with.. THOUGH druids DO have animal friendship as a spell, which can net them QUITE a few good animals, LONG BEFORE anyone else can even have followers..

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garjkal wrote:

Found it in 1e, for the Wu jen of all places.. Though its d4 at 10th... And only replenish once one leaves..

Ah, thanks! I was wondering where that was. After you mentioned that, it rang a bell but damned if I could remember where. Wu-Jen were pretty awesome!

I've never liked though, how clerics attract MORE in general, than warrior lords do..
AND unlike the warriors,they don't HAVE TO pay for them, as warriors do.

I kinda think that makes sense though. Religion would naturally attract far more people than a relatively unknown warlord. What I mean is, the church would be known all through the land or lands, whereas the 9th level fighter might only be known locally. Plus, with the huge role religion plays in the game, it makes sense to me. I think the part about not paying them is fair, because if you think about it, the cleric pays for the church and its upkeep. So the "pay" the clerics get is sort of like the Catholic churches today. They don't really "pay" priests. They pay for their medical, room and board, food, etc.

That i agree with.. THOUGH druids DO have animal friendship as a spell, which can net them QUITE a few good animals, LONG BEFORE anyone else can even have followers..

Good point! Still, it's not quite the same as having followers. The spell eventually wears off.