If you kill one, the others become stronger...

[Crissa]

Edit: you know what else I'd like to rip off for a roleplaying game? Those hunters in the Prydain series, where they work in connected groups that share a certain unholy vitality, so that when you kill one, whoops, you just made all the rest stronger.

How would this be doable in D&D?

You have X badguys on a team, and power is spread amongst them - and losing one member means the pool of power is the same size, but the number using that pool is smaller.

But how to do it in a balanced way in a campaign without making the last guy so uber that the party has no chance, and yet - the badguys have a reason to recruit.

-Crissa

[User3]

I'd use some permutation of the Swarm rules.

Since this is DnD, and monsters don't drop or lose any combat effectness until they hit less than 0 HPs, its perfect. Your CR stays the same despite individual members dying, meaning that instead of 20 guys being equal to CR 10, you'll have one guy who is CR 10 by the end of the battle. Simply allocate each guy a percentage of the HPs, and have him drop when his HPs are gone.

Add in something to take care of Mind-affecting effects, and you are good to go.

Remember, this works pretty well for melee monsters, but it gets really unbalanced with spells (though you could try a beholder thing, but I don't think its a good idea).

[RandomCasualty]

I'd probably hand out profane bonuses to the physical stats whenever one of the group dies. I'd figure a +4 bonus should be about right. +4 str, dex and con would be a nice boost.

[Neeek]

How far apart do you expect them to die? If you expect them to die in separate battles, then just tack a couple levels on each time or something.

[Username17]

I'd actually hand out a single spellpool of spell slots/day. With less characters available, the characters would squander more of the spells on buffs, making them individually more hard d'core.

-Username17

[Crissa]

1141978110[/unixtime]]I'd actually hand out a single spellpool of spell slots/day. With less characters available, the characters would squander more of the spells on buffs, making them individually more hard d'core.

That was my initial thought.

In fact, once I put it in front of me as D&D, the slots-day thing seemed obvious...

...But then what's the advantage to having more members, and how do you prevent someone from eating each other's spells prematurely?

-Crissa

[Username17]

...But then what's the advantage to having more members,

Well, some of your spells are going to be bless (that benefits everyone in the area), and some of your spells are going to be cause blindness (that target an enemy). In the first case, having more guys means that you are gaining more benefit, and in the second case having more guys increases the rate of fire in combat situations. Both are good.

and how do you prevent someone from eating each other's spells prematurely?

By asking really nicely. Of ccourse, once you've driven up the numbers in the group to the point where you don't all get tonecessarily get a spell slot every day, there's no point in adding members any more, but I think that's kind of desirable. There's only supposed to be 13 Knights of the Stone, and only 9 members of "The Nine".

-Username17