Re: Re: followers

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:03:26 +0000

On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:29:00 -0000, " JEFFREY KYER" <jeff.kyer_at_...> wrote:

>Yes, that would be my take on the matter. But I think that the player
>is trying to get the advantages of the follower without the
>disadvantages of the ally. =)

No, we're trying to get the personality and breadth of abilities of an ally with only the level of ability of a follower. A companion with low skills, but of greater importance and capability than a mere spear carrier.

>I'd just bring the relationship up to something unpleasantly like
>5w. Of course, unlike a follower, an ALLY requires you to pay him off
>in various ways...

Exactly. The rules as written make followers almost disposable, unless you're careless with too many of them, and additionally makes them severely and unrealistically limited in number of abilities. However, they do get 'free' improvements in abilities, rising with the hero. Allies, on the other hand, have a wider, higher rated, selection of abilities, but do not rise with the hero (I'm not sure how, or if, they rise). What we're after is a companion, with tighter emotional & personal ties to the hero, definitely not disposable, with low-rated abilities, but more of them than a follower, but with some, even if just the two normal follower abilities, rising with the hero, as befits a constant companion who regularly takes an important place in the hero's life & adventures. A low-rated ally who rises in ability as a follower, but is not replaceable on death.


Powered by hypermail