I talked to my player about leadership and he said he really wants to take it and I would let him design cohorts. He also understands that I want to build the followers. Hell even wanted to make a min-maxed gnome cook as a followers at first level with a +10 bonus to profession cook at first level. +2 obessive +1 wis +3 class skill +1 rank +3 skill focus
Having a cook follow you around will be nice and it was fun to build. Giving like a cleric of Iomedae the 12 gusies of Aeron as followers will be funny.
Generally speaking, I expect the player to be able to design his cohort as he sees fit. Usually, this does not result in an any more min-maxed character than normal for us, though often it is a character who is better than the rest of the group at something out of combat. Often, giving NPC classes would do nothing to hurt this, as NPCs can usually be just as good at crafting and skill checks.
As for installing a puppet king in Kingmaker, I wouldn't allow it. Not because it is it is broken or in any way detrimental to the game, but because switching out who is King is very disruptive to my game immersion. I would allow it for any other position fairly easily. I also would let my players pick up leadership and marry their cohort, and thus use the rules for having a married couple as king and queen.
I removed some political stuff that really doesn't belong in this thread.
Since the player is spending a feat, the player will get some say in the matter. It would be beyond annoying for a player to spend a feat on leadership for someone to manage their kingdom, and get a level 3 barbarian with int, wis, and cha of 3. But I don't believe that a player should necessarily have 100% control over the NPC either.
I usually ask the player what kind of cohort they are looking for, and I design a character with that in mind. After that, the advancement, and everything else are up to the player.
I look at it this way, the cohort is just a normal NPC until they become a cohort, so the PC should have no control over how the cohort is created aside from "I am looking for a X type of person", but after the NPC becomes a cohort they are being mentored by the PC, and so the PC has a lot of control over how they grow from there.
When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?
I certainly think that the GM should give the player a list of acceptable weapons/animal companions/improved familiars to choose from. And if that means that a druid needs to have a quest in order to find a stegosaurus before taking one as an animal companion (say), then that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
For Kingmaker, a medium compromise would be allowing the player/party to work up the stats (under guidelines, like the elite array (15,14,13,12,10,8)), and then the GM assigns those stats to one of the NPCs the party has met/befriended so far.
That way you could roleplay out the cohort coming forward to express their allegiance due to past events, and it would fit the game better.
An all low-charisma party shouldn't be blocked from having an effective King. Neither should they be able to completely circumvent one of the mainstays of the AP - but they will have enough other roles to fill that need decent Charisma's that they are still limiting themselves somewhat.
I took leadership once. The DM made my cohort for me.
Never taking leadership again.
I am currently playing Kingmaker and NOBODY wants to be King.
I have a player in my Kingmaker campaign who also plans on taking Leadership next level. Of course, in my game they already have a ruler with 20 CHA so that isn't an issue.
What I'm planning on doing is have the PC give me a (fluff only)description of the type of cohort they're looking for. I would then create a 15 point-buy (which is what the players used) character of the appropriate level which satisfies the description. I love making up characters with interesting personalities and backgrounds so this isn't really a burden on me at all.
During game sessions, I'll probably have the player control him. I would, of course, step in if the cohort starts doing things against his nature. We'll see how it goes.
This is how my DM did it with me, only I only got to say what type of character I wanted. I said I wanted some type of melee fighter and I got a human fighter with a dump wisdom and intelligence. My DM played him for the first few sessions to establish his personality and then passed him off to me. He ended up being one of my favorite characters to play, Leonidas meets Kronk from the Emperor's New Groove.
This is how my DM did it with me, only I only got to say what type of character I wanted. I said I wanted some type of melee fighter and I got a human fighter with a dump wisdom and intelligence. My DM played him for the first few sessions to establish his personality and then passed him off to me. He ended up being one of my favorite characters to play, Leonidas meets Kronk from the Emperor's New Groove.I have a player in my Kingmaker campaign who also plans on taking Leadership next level. Of course, in my game they already have a ruler with 20 CHA so that isn't an issue.
What I'm planning on doing is have the PC give me a (fluff only)description of the type of cohort they're looking for. I would then create a 15 point-buy (which is what the players used) character of the appropriate level which satisfies the description. I love making up characters with interesting personalities and backgrounds so this isn't really a burden on me at all.
During game sessions, I'll probably have the player control him. I would, of course, step in if the cohort starts doing things against his nature. We'll see how it goes.
I hope my player has as good an experience. I find it can be quite rewarding to try to play a character where the personality is already somewhat fleshed out for you. I certainly want the player to feel like it was worth taking the feat but at the same time I want to encourage the roleplay aspect of introducing a new character. I think it's a pretty good compromise.
I already have lots of ideas depending on the type of cohort he might be looking for. If he waits until 9th level for the feat, there's a chance it could be an envoy from the Nomen Centaurs. I'm thinking Nature Oracle. Could be loads of fun.
I certainly think that the GM should give the player a list of acceptable weapons/animal companions/improved familiars to choose from. And if that means that a druid needs to have a quest in order to find a stegosaurus before taking one as an animal companion (say), then that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?
What if he just writes his background in such a way that he was born where you can find a dinosaur at? That is now I got my tiger for my druid.
Why would you want to role the guy up? It's just more work for you.
Ultimately the way the feat is written up it appears the Dm decides who is attracted to follow the pc. However it seems to me that it shoul dbe a colabrative process where the player explains what they want thand then the DM builts it within those paramiters.
Best way to avoid magic item making cohorts or an oracle of life whos sole purpose is to heal a single PC.
When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?
Weapon Focus alone does not mean you get to forge your own magical weapon.
With Improved Familiar, you pick from a list of creatures whose stats come from the bestiary. Players don't invent their own creature for the familiar.
Leadership should be the same in that players get a pre-made NPC. You should not be allowing the creation of a 2nd player character with this feat.
When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?
Weapon Focus alone does not mean you get to forge your own magical weapon.
With Improved Familiar, you pick from a list of creatures whose stats come from the bestiary. Players don't invent their own creature for the familiar.
Leadership should be the same in that players get a pre-made NPC. You should not be allowing the creation of a 2nd player character with this feat.
Your analogy is flawed.
Weapon Focus doesn't let you create/choose your specific weapon, but it does let you choose the type of weapon from the list of types of weapons.
Improved Familiar doesn't let you pick anything you want, but you do have a list of choices.
Therefore, Leadership should let you choose your cohort from a ___________.
What the blank should be, is left up to the GM. It could be a list of generic NPCs. It could be the list of classes, where the GM creates the NPC of the class you want. It could be the list of all the NPCs you've encountered on your adventure. It could be the full list of all character creation options (i.e. the player creates it).
The player should have input on their cohort. How much is up to the GM, but to just hand a PC a character sheet and say "Here's the guy who joined you" is not fun.
I certainly think that the GM should give the player a list of acceptable weapons/animal companions/improved familiars to choose from. And if that means that a druid needs to have a quest in order to find a stegosaurus before taking one as an animal companion (say), then that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.What if he just writes his background in such a way that he was born where you can find a dinosaur at? That is now I got my tiger for my druid.
I missed this a year and a half ago, but I'll answer now:
If the GM is fine with that, then there's no problem. If the GM's not fine with that (maybe he doesn't wants PCs coming from the "lost world" part of the map, for instance), then there's a problem.
I allow the players to design their cohorts, but I limit them to NPC classes. It takes the feat down a notch but can still be quite useful.
See, this reads (to me) as 'I don't allow Leadership.'
I would never waste a feat to get a cohort limited to NPC classes. Followers, yes, obviously should only have NPC classes, but your COHORT? Really?
Like broken pencil: no point.
Wow you would think after a year and a half the conversation would have moved on., but to answer this question:
Therefore, Leadership should let you choose your cohort from a ___________.
n NPC that he GM has approved.
|
This can really be a problem area. It's definitely something that should be discussed between the GM and player long before the feat is taken. The player and the GM will both have assumptions, which may not be the same. Also, this feat can be greatly abused and unbalancing. It doesn't help that the feat is so vaguely described in the book. Personally, I appreciate this, as it allows each GM to interpret the feat in the way that's best for his game, without the player complaining it says something different in the book.
For instance, nowhere in the book does it say the followers or cohort will have player character classes. Personally, I assume all followers will be NPC classes, and the cohort will be a PC class.
I think the best approach is for the player and GM to create the character together. In my mind some things just don't make sense. For instance, why would a fighter have a wizard cohort? An interesting house rule could be that one can't have a cohort of a class that's a higher tier.
In the past, whenever a player got a cohort, it was something that had to be roleplayed. This was before feats. A cohort doesn't just magically appear because someone took a feat. A player wanting to take the feat should roleplay building a relationship with an NPC already in the world. In this case neither the GM nor the player is creating the cohort, per se, as the cohort already exists as an NPC. If the cohort isn't high enough level, I would allow them to gain appropriate levels within a short amount of time.
You really want to think this through as a GM. What you decide will largely depend on the maturity of your player and his willingness to work with you. If you have a mature player that will take your suggestions to heart and work with you to maintain your vision for the game and the integrity of your world, then there's no problem letting them create the cohort (or decide which class an existing NPC levels as). However, if you have a player who's a min-maxer or won't take direction from you, then there is a very real potential for damage to your game.
Weapon Focus doesn't let you create/choose your specific weapon, but it does let you choose the type of weapon from the list of types of weapons.
Improved Familiar doesn't let you pick anything you want, but you do have a list of choices.
Therefore, Leadership should let you choose your cohort from a ___________.
This is exactly what I meant. Player wants a wizard cohort, the GM looks up in the Gamemastery guide and selects a wizard of the right level. If no suitable candidate is found, the GM uses the NPC creation guidelines to make one that will fit the job.
Some people interpret Leadership to mean the player gets to roll up a second PC. Players sometimes abuse this to min/max bonuses or use the cohorts as humanoid shields. I think this is where the problems with the Leadership feat come from.
I keep a list of pre-generated NPCs of all classes and levels that can "interview" for the job. I typically give players 3 candidates to choose from for general requests like "I need a cleric to heal me in battle" but only 1 if the players get extremely specific. They are free to reject the candidate but then will have to wait until the next game session for more applicants.
A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment.
Emphasis mine.
The way this reads to me, the decision is ultimately in the DM's hands. That said, unless I, as a DM, had a very good reason not to allow a particular cohort to be recruited, I'd let them find what they wanted.
On the subject of designing the cohort, I do the initial work (within what the PC is looking for) and then the PC is free to (for the most part*) make the decision on what they gain on leveling while in the PC's employ.
None of my players have had a problem with me doing the initial design, as they trust me not to screw them over. Though at least one has gotten a very irritating** personality. >:D
*Again, I'll overrule only in I have a very good reason.
**Irritating to some of the other PCs, the players have found it quite amusing when the mage's awakened spellbook reminds everyone that the current venture (whatever that happens to be) will all end in tears.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If only I were using these forums as long as I've been playing this game...
The PCs should decide on their own method for selecting
which roles each of them will fill in the leadership of their
nation. In many cases, these choices should come naturally,
as each leadership role relies on a different ability score for
success in that role. Yet there are 11 different leadership
roles to choose from—unless you have 11 players, there’ll
be some vacancies left over after each PC chooses his role.
These vacancies should be filled by NPCs. While you can
certainly handwave this element of the game and simply
say that each vacancy is filled by a typical NPC skilled in
the required role (effectively giving each such role a +1
modifier to the appropriate kingdom element), it can be
more rewarding if the PCs fill the vacancies with specific
NPCs they’ve encountered and allied with. This adventure
and the previous adventure present a large number of
NPCs that the PCs can encounter, and most of them could
do quite well in positions of leadership. Which NPC gets
placed in which leadership role should be left for the PCs
to decide.
Kingmaker 2: Rivers Run Red p5
Solved
Right now, in the game I GM, I don't allow Leadership, mostly because with 5 players + Animal Companions/Familiars/Summons, it would slow down the game way too much.
That said, I'd allow the player to create his cohort as he sees fit, (maybe using a lower point buy than the one used for the PCs) and even control its actions in combat, even out of combat sometimes too, although I'd save myself the right to veto/change senseless course of actions.
That potion brewing healbot cleric won't throw herself at the dragon to distract it just so the player can escape safely, although a Paladin might.
only read the first few posts but its my opinion that the characters be allowed to use their leadership skill to get a cohort that does non-combat things for them. I am not going to ever stop a character from having a cohort that carries loot, picks locks, runs the farm, even scouts or carries messages. Cohorts can do almost anything but be a combat equal. they may protect the horces and camp when the group is in the dungeon.. hell they may even be a rogue that picks locks, and does the occasional flank action, or cleric that heals and casts the occasional buff.
but if a player takes a cohort to put them into dangerous situations I feel the GM should treat the NPC just like an animal companion. a horse will avoid caves, a wolf will balk the 3rd time its ordered to eat an attack of opportunity, a cohort is going to say screw you if told to tank the dragon so his paladin leader can get out of breath weapon range.
I have taken Leadership twice:
The first time, I rolled up a healbot Cleric, who had no personality, no back-story, and no qualms about doing a lot of figurative "heavy lifting" while receiving only our groups' hand-me-downs in recompense.
The second time, my GM handed me a list of people we had encountered in our adventure, whose alignment fit, all with 1 level of NPC class, and ability scores assigned (Heroic NPC array: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), but nothing else, i.e. no backstory, no feats, no skills (though maybe had a rank in a profession). He told me to pick the one I liked. Instead of a spontaneously generated min/maxed secondary PC, I got an apprentice who was almost no use to me... at first. By the end, her death was so traumatic I nearly retired that PC to wait for a new session to start.
I don't even remember the healbot's name.
I have only used the leadership feat once. We had befriended a pseudodragon in the campaign and i took the feat in order to make him a cohort. worked with the DM on it and leveled it with rogue levels so that he could do our trap finding and disabling. attacked very rarely and was more flavor than anything.... until one day the DM tried to jump us with invisible spider climbing Red Mantis Assasins.
after going through his whole elaborate ambush which was largly based on us walking through several hallways without noticing the invisible enemy I said... "wait a sec, wouldn't the pseudodragon have at least noticed that something invisible was standing on the wall due to his blind sense?"
at which point he had a total fit, soon after the whole campaign was ended in a kind of huffy way.
moral of the story... be careful that both DM and players have a mutual understanding on how the feat and cohort works.
I currently have the leadership feat in the one game I'm not GMing. The game is granting levels based on population size in the town we founded, rather than on XP - so I mostly took it for the followers, I'm playing a charisma caster so I have rather a lot of them.
Whilst I was allowed to built the cohort myself, using the NPC creation rules, the GM has made the followers a constant source of difficulty for my character to punish me for helping the rest of the party level faster.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
In the games I run and play in, the players select what they want out of a cohort - they can pick a friendly NPC, or they can specify "item-crafting wizard" or "bodyguard" or "elven scout", etc. Then the GM creates the actual NPC. We generally don't let the player design all the details and create a cohort that fits together with their PC like a puzzle piece.
Strangely, it is the player who has final veto power here - the GM creates the proposed cohort to the player's guidelines, and then the player agrees that it looks like what was desired. The GM isn't creating a character with all 8s and teh player isn't making one whose every spell and feat synergizes with their build.
Once the cohort enters play, the player has full control over how it levels.
|
That is a lot of bookkeeping. After playing a druid, and having to track the druid, the companion, and the summons I doubt I will do it again. I had fun, and it is an awesome class, but it is a good amount of things to track. As a DM I would not mind if the player did it as long as I knew he was capable of doing it efficiently.
Side note: How to drive your GM crazy: druid/summoner with Leadership.
Lets step it up a notch. Summoner with the Leadership feat and make your cohort a Master Summoner.
Check and Mate GM.
When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?
Okay, Sean, I'll bite. Because Leadership has been shown to be utterly abusable throughout 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder by skilled players who milk it for every ounce of power included therein.
Leadership differs from every other feat in the game; in that it grants you an additional companion that is (mostly) loyal to you alone. That doesn't even include the possibilities of HUNDREDS of followers.
There are some things that the players simply do not get to decide. In my game, they can select this feat; they do so knowing that I will design their cohort. That he will be built off a lower point buy than the PCs and he will have less gear. He will not be optimized. Now, I usually make a cohort that complements the character who selected the feat: one fighter in a game I ran took Leadership and since he was always hovering one or two sword thrusts from death, his cohort was a cleric of the Goddess that the fighter worshiped.
Another time, a Rogue in my game took leadership. He was expecting another rogue, or a bard, but he got a hexblade. He was HAPPY.
But no, if you let the player design his cohort and optimize him out, then what happens when all four or five or six players take leadership and they EACH have a summoner as their cohort? Hmmm?
Leadership gives FAR too much bang for the buck in comparison to other feats, if you as DM give complete and total control of the cohort (including determining his class, ability scores, skills, feats, and spell selection) to the players.
As you yourself say all the time Sean, there are things in the game that are sub-optimal choices. They are there in case someone wants to take them. Well, in the case of Leadership, it is not a sub-optimal choice as it ALWAYS provides a significant benefit. My players may gripe (on occcassion) because their cohort is not exactly what they had in mind, but that doesn't stop them from taking the feat.
And if it is a good enough feat for them to still take the moment it becomes available, even if they don't get to build the NPC cohort themselves; it is probably TOO good if they get to select ALL of the options in the ways that most benefits THEM.
That is my thoughts on the subject.
Master Arminas
There are some things that the players simply do not get to decide. In my game, they can select this feat; they do so knowing that I will design their cohort. That he will be built off a lower point buy than the PCs and he will have less gear. He will not be optimized. Now, I usually make a cohort that complements the character who selected the feat: one fighter in a game I ran took Leadership and since he was always hovering one or two sword thrusts from death, his cohort was a cleric of the Goddess that the fighter worshiped.
This is rude. I get to choose my cohort, not the universe. While I can understand the whole idea of "only a 15pb, not a 20pb" (which I wouldn't do), I cannot understand why you would choose who the PC gets. Anybody I didn't see fit to be an adventurur with me or whom I didn't like I'd send packing, no questions asked.
I'm playing in a Kingmaker campaign now where my character, the ruler (a life oracle who is most certainly NOT just another healbot!) took a wizard as her cohort (our party happened to have no arcane spell casters). I think my GM handled it very well - I was able to make the character how I wanted with the heroic NPC array, giving me a nice, well-balanced cohort.
The most fun part for me however was writing the backstory for him, and the other followers. As it's kingmaker, there is lots of down time, and I was able to write the story of how my character and the cohort met, and actually made the cohort the character's husband after a year of kingdom building. I play them as a team, rather than a "I'm in charge, go do this" way, and I think it works really well. I even wrote out who all of her followers were, and named all of them above level 1 - they're all administrators in the kingdom's government in some fashion. Writing all of this was some of the most fun I've had building up the "fluff" of our kingdom. Suffice to say, I think that Leadership can be very effective, ESPECIALLY in kingmaker where the timescale and level of NPC involvement is so large.
tl;dr:
Kingmaker is great for Leadership, but I think it all really depends on the maturity level of the players - I like to build characters that are effective, but not min/maxed. If you can trust your players to take the feat and not go b#!#%%& crazy with it but to build a helpful, fleshed out NPC, then there's really no problem with the feat. If you can't, then you might want to have a discussion with the player.
Kybryn,
I think you have a misunderstanding of the defination of rude. As DM, it is my job to make decisions concerning my game world. That is a very old-fashioned point of view, but it is my view. Just by virtue of being player characters does not give the men and women who form my group the luxury of making every decision and determining who will decide to adventure alongside them.
Cohorts are NPCs, my friend. Non-Players Characters, and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the DM. I decide what NPCs (and cohorts) are appropriate based upon what the player character and the party need at the time. If the person running a PC in my game doesn't like that, he always has the option to pick another feat.
I don't encumber my group with useless cohorts, but at the same time I keep in mind that these are NPCs who are cut out to adventuring on their own. They are the Robin to the player's Batman. Eventually, they may decide to head out and become Nightwing and the PC recruits another Robin, but they are not the heroes. That is for the players.
I do not assign men of magic (alchemists, magi, sorcerers, summoners, witches, or wizards) as henchmen. Paladins (anti-paladins as well) do not become henchemen, nor do cavaliers or samurai or druids, and only seldom monks. Just as rare are oracles and inquisitors; such classes are too focused to usually become cohorts, in my opinion.
Bards, barbarians, clerics, fighters, rangers, and rogues form the bulk of all cohorts. On very rare occasion, ninjas and gunslingers. I allow certain creatures, on rare occasion, to become a cohort: pegasii, pseudo-dragons, faerie dragons and the like--intelligent creatures that provide some benefit to the party, yet are not overpowering in and of themselves.
This isn't being rude; it is doing the job of a DM. It is about defining my game, my campaign, so that both my players and myself have fun.
Which is why cohorts don't stay behind and craft; they sign up to adventure, to learn, or to serve with a great leader. And they get a share in the treasure; not a full share, but they get a share. Their belongings are theirs; not those of the player who selected Leadership as a feat. And if the cohort ever feels abused or that the PC he follows is taking advantage of him, that cohort is free to leave--with his gear. Even if that pisses off the PC in question.
My players know this going in. And you what? That doesn't keep them (some of them) from still choosing the Leadership feat. It is that powerful that even with this restrictions I place upon it, PCs still want it.
Master Arminas
@Arminas I agree with everything you say other than the idea that you get to choose the Cohort. I think that dervish said it well: both parties can be pleased while letting the player choose who they want to take on as a cohort.
Again, I'd send your idea of what my character would take as a cohort home if I didn't like him. I would then keep searching for someOne I felt fit my needs.
The reason I say "rude" is because according to my gaming style and mentality, it is rude for a GM to consider this to be a separation of powers a opposed to working together to have an enjoyable experience.
|
Wow you would think after a year and a half the conversation would have moved on., but to answer this question:
Therefore, Leadership should let you choose your cohort from a ___________.n NPC that he GM has approved.
+1
It does not really state how the NPC is created. That is one of those discussions that need to happen between the GM and the Player. The book does not even tell you how to generate stats for characters, only gives you many options (standard (4d6 drop low), classic (3d6), heroic (2d6+6), dice pool (24d6 divided up as need), and point buy). It is up to each GM and player group to decide on what works best for their group. This same goes with creating NPC's for leadership. The important part is that it works well for the GM and the players, and follows what rules are placed for the feat.
Until now I have been allowing PCs to build their followers and cohorts, cohorts using the PC build rules (point buy, I _think_ npc gear but honestly don't recall).
There are two super-tweaked NPCs, one is not involved in gameplay at all, he is off doing 'behind the scenes' work for his 'master' which is fine. The other is a doppleganger rogue rolling on more for perception than the rest of the party...
All in all, not too unbalanced. But the potential is there. They could have made casters. Even at two levels lower, a dedicated caster can curb-stomp a lot of stuff.
I'm changing Leadership in my future games, not sure how, but maybe allow a choice:
a)design NPC as you like, using only NPC classes and elite array for stats, NPC gear as per book
b)describe NPC you want, pick race and class, DM designs. Gear as NPC.
Some level of control SHOULD be put in place, as I personally have abused the feat (and will do it again if allowed, I love making OP characters, Leadership is THE level 7 feat, always).
I don't agree that the DM should make the cohort, I do think that the player and DM should agree on the design... what that means will change based on the group.
I'm tempted to say that only NPC classes are available, I mean, seriously, even a level 5 warrior is better than, say, Toughness. You can still have a caster with the Adept, and the Expert, unlike any PC class, CHOOSES class skills, TEN OF THEM! There is still lots of room for customization, and they will be less likely to overshadow the PC party...
I have seen groups that do all of the above listed possibilities. From leadership not allowed to basically a 2nd PC only slightly less powerful that the 1st PC. It really isn't a rules question since the rules don't say. It is a 'This is what our group is doing for this campaign' type question.
My preference when I am GM:
1) Player gives me the basic concept of what they are looking for in a cohort. I will build it to that concept. I will optimize it, but I will try to not optimize it quite as much as the least optimized PC in the group. (I know that is nebulous, but I don't want a cohort overshadowing any of the PC's.)
2) Cohort uses Standard NPC gear (at the max) and either:
.. A) Same point buy for abilities as PC's but only the NPC classes.
.. B) Uses -5 point buy for abilities as the PC's but any class.
3) Followers use only NPC classes and -5 point buy for abilities and pretty crappy gear.
4) Cohort will probably be better if they picked an already existing NPC from the campaign.
Ex: The hag had an awakened golem as a body guard. Since he is now unemployed but they spared his life, he is available for hire. If one of the PC's decides to take leadership and have that golem as his cohort, he will get benefits for working within the campaign. Maybe a bonus to his starting leadership score. Or the bodyguard has contacts with the assassin who has been trying to kill the PC wizard. Knows where his former boss hid something. Or a couple extra ability points. Something.
5) Cohort and followers will probably be better if the PC has been working up to it for an extended time, didn't just suddenly decide to take leadership at level 9.
Ex: I had a player that forgo part of his reward from the baron, but made deal that he could come recruit a half dozen serfs to work at his manor once he got it set up. He made that deal repeatedly. He also made nice with the serfs in those areas. He got pretty decent followers when he took leadership. He also very specifically spent in-character time talking to guild leaders, business owners, and merchant princes in a lot of cities. Specifically asking them about people good at bargaining and legal weaseling. He was looking for a cohort to run his businesses when he was busy. He ended up with a very clever cohort with some particularly high skill modifiers.
6) I usually let the player run their cohort and followers however they want. Almost the only time I step in is when the player has the cohort doing something very obviously out-of-character or suicidal. Occasionally if the player sends the cohort off independently on some mission without the PC being able to supervise, I will just tell them what the results were. But few players will do that.
Those are the guidelines I use and usually recommend to others if they ask.
For your particular case, so what if they want an aristocrat with a 16+ charisma? what will that really hurt. With their lousy charisma and concentrating on that stat they will have a low level aristocrat with all his other abilities being fairly low.
Frankly they could have something much more game changing with a buffing bard or master summoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I saw this thread was necro'd from years ago I hoped that the OP had returned with an epic tale of how the NPC ruling the kingdom went.
That said, I think it would be interesting if cohorts were less powerful but perhaps more survivable kind of like familiars and other pets which gain Evasion. I'd also like to see an option which allowed enough followers so you could crew a ship with them.
Does give you enough to crew some smaller sailing ships.
But not anywhere near enough for a war galley. Even at double numbers of commoners.