Are there any rules that prevent a Cohort from taking leadership?
Prerequisite: Character level 7th.
If I am a level 12 Sorcerer with a 22 Cha.
My Leadership score will be 12+6+6
My Cohort will be a level 10.
I will have 15 first level followers and 1 second level follower.
(17 new party members)
My level 10 Cohort will also take Leadership.
His Cohort will be level 8.
Conservatively his Leadership score will be 10+2
My Cohort will have 8 level 1 followers.
(10 new party members)
The Level 8 Cohort will take leadership to obtain a level 6 cohort.
He will have no followers.
(1 new party member)
I see this as the most useful feat in D&D and Pathfinder, also the most broken. One feat that instantly makes one a party unto himself. As a DM I wouldn't allow it in my campaign, because if you allow a player to take it, then the cohort should also be allowed to take it. The domino effect is devastating.
Any thoughts?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Step 1-Play a Summoner with a real badass Eidolon.
Step 2-Take Leadership.
Step 3-Choose as your cohort another Summoner with another badass Eidolon.
Step 4-Have that cohort take Leadership and get another Summoner and another Eidolon.
Step 5-Leave your gaming group because now you don't need them! Suckers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's horribad and painfully dumb. Your GM should allow this only if you're war-gaming and want to field units. Or, alternatively, require you to stat and name every single one of them and write up a one page background.
At which point you will be attacked by a remorhaz. Or medium green dragon. Or a colossal acid-spraying stag-beetle. Or two bone-storms. Or fifteen level 3 wizards who cast magic missile every round, thereby requiring you to write another 40 page essay on 'why I will not try to make my party of fifty-eight experts legitimate'.
Most GMs won't even let you take Leadership the first time for the many many reasons why Leadership was in the DMG in 3.5 and not in the PhB with the rest of the feats.
|
I see this as the most useful feat in D&D and Pathfinder, also the most broken. One feat that instantly makes one a party unto himself. As a DM I wouldn't allow it in my campaign, because if you allow a player to take it, then the cohort should also be allowed to take it. The domino effect is devastating.Any thoughts?
You could always just ask your players not to abuse mechanics like that.
|
Lets see. The maximum level of a cohort is two levels below you. So If you are 20 then you can have a chain of .....7 cohorts. 6 of whom have their own cohorts.
Basically you would have guys covering all the even levels from 16 down to 6 (the cohort too low level to take leadership).
Where it really gets nuts though is that they will all have their own followers.
Leadership is a helluva drug. Even without allowing cohorts to take leadership it is clearly stronger than any other ability because for virtually any ability in the game you could instead take leadership and have your cohort have that ability plus all the benefits of being a whole other person.
Rule 0 is a pretty good rule.
Regarding cohorts taking leadership here is an interesting line from the 3.5 dungeon masters guide that for whatever reason didn't make it into pathfinder.
So, what’s really the difference between allies who come along
and use their abilities to face dangers alongside the PCs, and
cohorts who do the same thing?
Cohorts are people who take on a subservient role. Cohorts are
not leaders. They might voice an opinion now and again, but for
the most part, they do as they’re told.
But yea, I would not let a cohort take leadership.
The same DM who said "The eidolon is not allowed to take the improved natural attack feat because it would unbalance his game", just announced that he will allow every player to take Leadership if they wanted to take it.
I am inclined to not tell him the consequences of his statement. Even one round of Leadership without the Cohorts taking leadership would spiral a campaign out of control.
|
|
It is important to note that leadership specifies that the cohort is an NPC. NPCs are created by the DM not players. That is the critical error most DMs make. They let the player make the cohort and so the player makes the cohort that is exactly what he wants.
If the DM makes the cohort organically (such as using a current NPC) then leadership becomes less powerful. Also the DM should be leveling the cohort according to the NPCs goals and desires.
In my games a player must choose an existing NPC with whom he already has an existing positive relationship. This makes the cohort more of a real character than just a PCs shadow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dawg I'm so pimp my minions have minions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Play an Alchemist with a Tumor Familiar.
- Take a level of Beast-Bonded Witch.
- Now your cancer can get his own cohort!
- Play an Alchemist with a Tumor Familiar.
- Take a level of Beast-Bonded Witch.
- Now your cancer can get his own cohort!
...........This.......is.......beautiful.........
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait.
Wait.
Can eidolons take Leadership?
*head asplode*
It is important to note that leadership specifies that the cohort is an NPC. NPCs are created by the DM not players. That is the critical error most DMs make. They let the player make the cohort and so the player makes the cohort that is exactly what he wants.
If the DM makes the cohort organically (such as using a current NPC) then leadership becomes less powerful. Also the DM should be leveling the cohort according to the NPCs goals and desires.
In my games a player must choose an existing NPC with whom he already has an existing positive relationship. This makes the cohort more of a real character than just a PCs shadow.
Why is it a "critical error" for the DM to let a player create the cohort? If the DM is happy for the player to do so then what is the issue? If the DM doesn't set the parameters for the cohort then it's their own fault if the cohort unbalances things.
It's easy enough for the DM and player to work out how the cohort came to follow the PC and then the player can run the cohort within that framework. The DM can intervene if the PC tries something the DM thinks is out of line for the cohort.
In the Kingmaker campaign I am in my character, the Duke, had a kobold bard cohort. We befriended the kobolds early on so it fit in with the passage of the campaign for the kobold to become my cohort. When the DM wanted to use the cohort for some plot point he took him over, but when we got back to normal play I ran him. Alas poor Giacomo died trying to free a colony of kobold slaves from a drow city (in a DM generated side quest).
My next cohort was a sorcerer who was researching dragons - which we had encountered in the same side quest. So it fit in with the campaign for her to join us (plus the Duke is keen for some heirs....). I say "was" as she got disintegrated a bit later on and we don't have raise dead or the like on our campaign.
As for what my next cohort will be.... I don't think there will be a queue of applicants!
There are no rules to prevent the NPC cohort, that the GM designs, from having Leadership.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only thing stopping the leadership pyramid scheme is the GM. Personally, I allow leadership, and I consider allowing cohorts taking leadership after discussions with the player about how it's going to be used. So far what I've gotten in reply from the one player who's asked to do it is that they want to strengthen their home base defenses, particularly if the PCs aren't present at the time of an attack/infiltration.
Can it be abused? Without question. Is it inherently abusive? Like pretty much everything else, no, not in and of itself. Just comes down to communication between GM and players.
|
In general, that seems more like a "player only" feat. NPCs don't need a feat to have lackeys, don't need to roll to control them, don't need anything really, just a GM to make it so. The feat has a lot to it that can be quite subjective. If this was ever in my games, the cohort is an NPC run by the GM, created by the GM. It will be loyal and it's class and race would be up to the player, but not a "second PC" for that player. I think that is the problem that would most likely come from it, with it just being a second PC for the player.
And all 2,000 of them are zombies who were necro'd in this thread, to discuss 3.5 material no less.
To the long-gone-and-buried OP, I simply houserule that people who take Leadership are not followers, they're leaders. Which means they don't follow PCs around the game world as cohorts. I'm willing to consider a PC getting a "leader" cohort (e.g. a cohort who also has the Leadership feat) but specifically only for non-adventuring things, like say, if your cohort is a minor noble who swears fealty to you but stays behind to run your castle and lands while you're adventuring.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
In general, that seems more like a "player only" feat. NPCs don't need a feat to have lackeys, don't need to roll to control them, don't need anything really, just a GM to make it so. The feat has a lot to it that can be quite subjective. If this was ever in my games, the cohort is an NPC run by the GM, created by the GM. It will be loyal and it's class and race would be up to the player, but not a "second PC" for that player. I think that is the problem that would most likely come from it, with it just being a second PC for the player.
Well if you want to be a jerk GM you can use Leadership to deny players XP - technically the cohort and followers are features of a feat and you don't get extra XP just because the bad guy has Power Attack. *do not do this*
My problem with "cohort chains" is that these guys are like friend of a friend things - your cohort does pretty much what you want, but the next one down the chain isn't loyal to you, he's loyal to your cohort. In fact he may not like the guy that keeps bossing around his boss.
Only thing stopping the leadership pyramid scheme is the GM. Personally, I allow leadership, and I consider allowing cohorts taking leadership after discussions with the player about how it's going to be used. So far what I've gotten in reply from the one player who's asked to do it is that they want to strengthen their home base defenses, particularly if the PCs aren't present at the time of an attack/infiltration.
Can it be abused? Without question. Is it inherently abusive? Like pretty much everything else, no, not in and of itself. Just comes down to communication between GM and players.
Perfect use of the feat (the home base thing).
If someone wants to use a feat to have no in-combat benefit, I don't stop them either. :D
I get that people want to design the cohort themselves, but it simply doesn't work that way.
NPC cohort... GM designs. Any input from the player that the GM uses is courtesy, nothing more.
Step 1-Play a Summoner with a real badass Eidolon.
Step 2-Take Leadership.
Step 3-Choose as your cohort another Summoner with another badass Eidolon.
Step 4-Have that cohort take Leadership and get another Summoner and another Eidolon.
Step 5-Leave your gaming group because now you don't need them! Suckers.
Don't forget to have all the summoners VMC into druid. (i think the eldritch heritage wildblood thing to get an animal companion has been FaQ'd away, but I might be wrong, in that case do that.)
The bottom of the chain can have the Squire feat, and gain a lower level follow that way. However, there is a better way: Simulacrum yourself. You took the feat at level 7, and at 20, your simulacrum is level 10 , and thus has leadership. You have no limits to how many simulacra you can have at one time, and if they are all you, then you get quite a few cohorts.
/cevah
Cohort with leadership feat : his cohort and followers are loyal to the him, not the player.
Once again, the NPC cohort (who is made by the GM) can absolutely have Leadership...
The NPC cohort, controlled, by the GM, decides what his cohort and followers do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the player can still decide what the cohort will do, it's just a chain of command.
But the player can still decide what the cohort will do, it's just a chain of command.
He can request help, sure. Like animal companions, cohorts aren't part of the character...
They aren't controlled by the PC, they take commands from the PC...
If the PC tells his cohort to something obviously suicidal, the GM can have the cohort just ignore it.
It's one feat.
It's an NPC.
There are no rules in the books against this, and frankly, I don't see a real problem with it. It is unlikely to affect power level, as the cohort's cohort is unlikely to ever take place in combat, being a minimum of 4 levels below the PC. So the earliest this could happen would be when the PC was 9th level, the cohort is 7th, and the cohort's cohort is 5th. That 5th level NPC is less effective in combat, and more difficult to replace than a monster summoned by the 9th level party member.
Also, when we're talking about NPC's 4 levels below the party level, we're usually talking about out of combat/downtime type acquaintances. In which case, leadership/cohort is not doing any more than simply making a friend, except ensuring a little better loyalty from that friend.
From a story reference, I can't think of any high level archetypal character that wouldn't have a throng of cohorts following him around.
There are no rules in the books against this, and frankly, I don't see a real problem with it. It is unlikely to affect power level, as the cohort's cohort is unlikely to ever take place in combat, being a minimum of 4 levels below the PC. So the earliest this could happen would be when the PC was 9th level, the cohort is 7th, and the cohort's cohort is 5th. That 5th level NPC is less effective in combat, and more difficult to replace than a monster summoned by the 9th level party member.
Also, when we're talking about NPC's 4 levels below the party level, we're usually talking about out of combat/downtime type acquaintances. In which case, leadership/cohort is not doing any more than simply making a friend, except ensuring a little better loyalty from that friend.
From a story reference, I can't think of any high level archetypal character that wouldn't have a throng of cohorts following him around.
totally correct, nothing in the rules preventing the NPC (made by the GM) from having this feat.
Isn't a chain of Leadershipped followers what Aroden did with Arazni, Iomedae, Milani, and dunno who else?
Isn't a chain of Leadershipped followers what Aroden did with Arazni, Iomedae, Milani, and dunno who else?
The chain of leadership is essentially the foundation of likely every organization in the world.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Isn't a chain of Leadershipped followers what Aroden did with Arazni, Iomedae, Milani, and dunno who else?The chain of leadership is essentially the foundation of likely every organization in the world.
Right, but in most situations a cohort is not your employee(doesn't earn a wage) and not your military subordinate. They are your friend. And chain of command doesn't generally apply with a group of friends where some people are friends and some are indifferent to each other.
Depends, it can be something between a group of friends and an actual organization (let's ignore the fact that "cohort" doesn't mean "friend").
For example, in a rowdy group of rebels. You (the first leader) don't pay people under you for their services, nor the band is a military organization. Yet, the group has a leader, the leader's right arm, the trusty fellow of the right arm, and so on down the chain.
Maybe after one passage or two, some people don't even like too much the person above the one they do like, but they stick with the group because they share common views or whatever, and they obey higher "orders" (used as a very broad term) because they know their direct superior will follow them.
And if any cohort has too different views than the person you're a cohort for, he'll either leave or be invited to leave, or maybe he'll make it end in blood (probably his own). Once he's gone, he'll be replaced and everything will be repeated until a like-minded chain is reached. Problem solved... provided the GM isn't a jerk enough to bring in game a series of one thousand troublesome sub-cohorts. But also, if one wants to be a cohort for another that works for/is friend with/wathever some specific guy, it's very unlikely that he'll even show his face asking to be a cohort.
I mean, assume I create a gaming club for RPGs but not board games because I hate them for some reason. I have Leadership, and my friend George (cohort) joins my club. That means, of course, he more or less shares the same way of thinking; or at least accepts it (maybe he doesn't hate board games, but doesn't mind living without them). If he didn't, he'd just leave my club or wouldn't join in the first place. Now, George too has Leadership. Who will he attract? Paul, who also more or less shares the view, or Dan, who doesn't mind RPGs but absolutely loves board games and wants to play them?
I'm not paying anyone, nor is George my military subordinate. It's just a friendly group, but a group with somewhat like a leader. If people don't like that leader, they don't join out of mere appreciation for one lower in the chain who follows that leader. Or if they do, as said, they either end up leaving or betraying, whether they planned it from the start or just reached a limit in enduring what they don't like.
Cohort is not 'friendship'. You can have 'friends' in the game without a single feat. friendship is also a mutual relationship. Cohorts are a very unidirectional relationship. Not to say there is no mutual respect, or even mutual like/love between the two parties, but there is very much a superior and an inferior to the relationship. The cohort has a very deep-seated respect for the master, in many ways deeper than consciously realized. This is why the loyalty is almost unquestionable.
The leadership feat represents the attention spent on the cohort, training and guiding him/her. Giving them enough attention to keep their thirst satiated. That's also why you can only have a single cohort - for the same narrative reason a jedi master can have only one padawan.
|
|
NPCs as a unit in the game world moves into the realm of the GM's world building. It is not a class feature like an animal companion, it is a byproduct of a feat. NPCs would not need the leadership feat to gain followers, they would get followers as part of their story and background. They don't need to follow the same rules of PCs. This is the same reason why popular game characters can never be recreated with the rules, because they exist outside the rules. Cayden Cailean would never come out right if you put him on a character sheet. As such, the cohort NPC would not need or get the leadership feat. It is an NPC that is introduced to a PC via a behind the scenes recruitment event that is initiated by a PC feat.
This is something that will vary greatly from GM to GM, so if you are a player and want this, talk to your GM before planning your characters life around it. To me, as a GM, this feat gives you access to a party NPC that will accept direction, but is it's own person and will act of its own free will (within the scope of its loyalty to the PC). It will be on GM control in battle and will need to be asked to do things. It is not a chance for a PC to build a secondary lower level PC or build a crafting-bot (which I have seen on a post somewhere)
This is the beginning of a pyramid scheme, isn't it? ; )
Cohorts can not get leadership, they're followers by nature. Otherwise they would not be cohorts.
The same goes double for simulacra.
Why for Simulacra? If I got the feat at 7th, and make a 10th level simulacra of myself when I am 20th, why would it not have my 7th level feat?
/cevah
Cohorts can not get leadership, they're followers by nature. Otherwise they would not be cohorts.
This is particularly narrow-minded
Cohorts can not get leadership, they're followers by nature. Otherwise they would not be cohorts.This is particularly narrow-minded
It is also the explicit rule in 3.X. :-)
/cevah
Cohorts can not get leadership, they're followers by nature. Otherwise they would not be cohorts.
The same goes double for simulacra.
Why for Simulacra? If I got the feat at 7th, and make a 10th level simulacra of myself when I am 20th, why would it not have my 7th level feat?
/cevah
Because unlike you... it's not a person... it's a magical construct with no will of it's own. Hardly leadership material.
As it is... I only allow the feat if I'm doing an AP... for my homebrew campaigns, it's entirely banned. Pl
It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).
Actually, it is a person, with its own will, even. It just can be absolutely controlled by you, even if it wants to do something else. See threads of BBEG making a simulacrum of a Paladin, and then making that new paladin fall by forcing it to do evil.
The simulacra has feats. So why not a feat that does not require having a will? It is not disqualified for the feat. It has the 7th level prerequisite for the feat.
You want to ban it, fine. That is not what this thread is asking. The thread wandered into Leadership by followers, and a simulacra is a kind of follower, sort-of. Cite me a rule that states the feats is has cannot include Leadership. As GM, you get to select which feats a simulacra has, if you do not have an actual record of the original at that same HD level. That is why I mentioned when I got the feat, so that it would be there at 10th.
/cevah
Wait, what if you take 5 levels of whatever, then 10 levels of Noble Scion, and have your cohort take 5 levels of whatever, then 10 levels of Noble Scion, and get a cohort that takes 5 levels of whatever, then 10 levels of Noble Scion... ad infinitum?
Noble Scion also has a 'Special' condition, that only an idiot GM would meet an infinite number of times.
It is an obvious bonus and i already thought of getting leadership once anyway , but this might come in handy for what i have in mind.
So i will cut the story , the point is my char has come to an agreement with a CG demigod that impressed him with a performance display and from CN became CG as well as said he would spread good on the world in general from that point on , atleast until a certain action trigger him in a killing spree of pretty much every human in the region it happened.
Anyway , I thought of creating this huge CG organization that fights agaisnt slavery... you know the usual. Anyway this is more of a downtime plan of my char and not something i will get my group into , so i thought of getting leadership and leaving my cohort to "run" most things while i deal with the main adventures and so on.
I do plan on having a really big organization ofc and this kind of leadership tree could help.
Personally i dont think my GM will oppose , he allows leadership in general and this time i wont get anything from this , from my own cohort to every other NPC i plan on leaving aside , they probably will come into play if my GM takes to opportunity to make a adventure to the main party from this.