>> Why not? The whole purpose of followers is to extend the hero's
>> abilities, so why should you not use the follower for those abilities.
>> A healer could have his warrior follower stand guard while he carried
>> news of the attack, or a warrior could send a Fleetfooted follower to
>> deliver the message while HE stood guard. Both seem eminently sensible
>> to me. Why should a group of two or more people be forced to fail
>> simply because they cannot be in two places at once? They CAN.
>
>We don't necessarily disagree here -- I don't object to your two
>examples, because they don't necessarily give the follower any
>initiative, or scope for important decisions.
Well, I would allow fairly wide definitions of tasks, anywhere from "Go help him!" as an AP loan, to "Take my warband to the tower, set up the defences, and await my arrival", as a complete scenario. Both are defined by the hero, but the follower does get a lot of leeway in the latter. When we get back to our game, the Yinkini is going to have to stay at home and send his follower with the heroes, as the Yinkini is suffering from severe blood loss and a couple of little holes in the neck...
>The important thing about followers, IMO, is that they are
>subordinate. I've played in games where players run two characters,
>and from my experiences, this is not as smooth as the subsidiary
>followers of Hero Wars.
Agreed. We used to allow multiple characters, because of having too few players, but followers are easier. The problem is, too few players and too many followers still leaves you stuck if you want to tell some players details and keep them secret from others - our current problem!
Wulf
Powered by hypermail