I've been playing D&D since about 1983. I now play Pathfinder, but even during the 3rd/3.5 run, there was one thing I absolutely forbade in the games I ran. The Leadership feat. And from the reactions of serious disappoint I get from some players, it seems to me that that was the right call. Everyone seems to want to take it, to give their character a second character to play, and who can blame them? For the price of a single feat slot, you essentially get a second full set of character class abilities at your disposal. (I know technically that the cohorts are NPCs under the DM's control, but my games usually have 5-6 players...if they each take this feat well, who are we kidding? I'm gonna let them run their own cohorts to avoid the pain in the ass it would be for me to run them all.)
This to me seems about the most unbalancing thing in the game, and it has always amazed me that it keeps popping up in other editions (3.5, Pathfinder... I'm not sure about 4th Ed, as I don't play it). Essentially, it seems, cohorts and such are treated as "summoned monsters", in that they are taken into account in the character's CR. After all, they used a feat slot to take it, so it's part of THEIR CR, right? To break it down even further, if I have 5 players at the table, I tailor the adventure for 5 characters. If any or all of them have cohorts....well, I still only make the game for 5 characters, because their cohorts DON'T COUNT. And if you DO make the adventure tougher because of the cohorts, well then the experience points and treasure just get crazy, and characters level up faster than you can say "Monty Haul".
It seems a no-win situation (from the DM's perspective) to me. But perhaps I'm missing something about this feat? Perhaps there is some aspect of granting players a cohort and small army at their disposal that makes this completely game-breaking feat actually usable?
How do you handle the Leadership feat in your games? More specifically, how do you keep it from causing serious imbalance in the game?
---
Taffer
In our Kingmaker campaign, I recently gave each PC (4th level) the Leadership feat for free to reflect the various subordinates, servants, aides and whatnot each of them are likely to have at their disposal as they develop into leaders of their own kingdom. As their leadership scores increase and they begin to gain followers it'll be up to them to assign each one a name, class, background and role they're supposed to fulfill; be it a personal bodyguard, chamberlain, paramour, servant, clerks or what have you. The only other difference beyond it being free and available at lower levels is that this leadership feat doesn't provide a cohort; only followers. We'll see how it plays out.
Most of the time we've seen leadership at my table, it was used for off-screen stuff. The noble might take it for a loyal seneschal, or the spy master might take it for his information network. But all the extras never went on adventures. They kept the home fires burning, secured the home front, or worked quietly in the shadows. The only exception I can think of in my years of playing was when we had a fop noble with a warforged bodyguard. It made for a very summoner/eidalon flavor, where the PC was irrelevant in combat compared to his cohort. It might be the fact that my group is on the large side (6-9 players), so we don't feel the need for extras.
If you look at Leadership as giving you a large number of basically normal, non-combatants, it suddenly becomes nicely balanced.
I have also banned leadership in my campaigns.
I don't like the idea of leadership simply being a feat, because when it is time to build the cohort you can easily have the cohort take the leadership feat, creating a domino effect.
If I were to allow the leadership feat in, I would say that only the "Party leader" could take it. But the easiest solution is to simply not allow it.
Two words: Not allowed.
For all of the reasons you just listed. Parties of five (ahh Neve Campbell where have you gone) are hard enough as it is with familiars, and animal companions. Not to mention that I am currently running an NPC in each campaign (at the behest and request of the players) as well. Leadership would put way too many "chefs in the kitchen" so to speak. I've never yet had a player balk at that decision, they always find some other feat and move on with their lives. Are you having a lot of backlash from not allowing it?
We've used Leadership in past 3/3.5 campaigns that went to around 20th level. Notes:
1) The player did not get to construct the cohort. If he was actively searching for a cohort to fill a specific role he could specify that, but the GM was in charge of the actual specs. It's an NPC, after all.
2) Cohorts took up a half-share of XP, and sometimes treasure.
3) Due to Note 1, it was not possible for the player to minmax a combo team. Due to Note 2 and the fact that extra characters on the field meant combat took longer, there was an unspoken rule that only one cohort would be used in battle, and it would only be used by someone who was not already using summons or pets. So it generally wasn't abused.
In 4th Ed, there's no feat for Leadership. If you seek out a companion (or one seeks out you), then that's that. Companions are fairly simple to run, but they still take up time, and the document describing them suggests increasing encounter XP budgets to account for them. Our current 4e game has several companions, but mostly they just run our ship while we're away. 4e combat is slow enough as it is without adding more things to do, so typically our companions stay out of the fights even if they're around. They only get used during combat if their talents are needed, and in a balanced party, that's rare. Usually only when someone can't make it to the game - easier than running two PCs.
I told my players that everything their PCs can do, NPCs can do too. They didn't like the thought that an NPC with Leadership brings the bad guy an ally that doesn't grant any added CR/XP beyond what the bad guy alone would since they are a part of the first character. This is the counterpoint to cohorts not counting into the APL.
I wanted to +1 this. This is true of anything. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. If you have a class, feat, power available, every monster or bad-guy NPC will have that class, feat, or power also available. Sometimes just that pure fact makes the players second guess a choice, sometimes not.
I allow it but the party can only take a cohort they meet during the campiagn which limits it a bit. In my group everyone hates playing clerics so allowing a cohort cleric once they qualify for the Leadership feat is a work around that allows the party to be effective without forcing a player to be a cleric or other healer class.
I usually don't allow the leadership feat, but I did let one of my players take it because he got really attached to one of the NPCs in our Serpent's Skull game. I let him take leadership to keep the npc around without having her eat party exp.
I give it for free at 1st level to everyone.
I allow Leadership insofar as to produce an additional resource for the player akin to an animal companion (which I guess can also be abused and become overpowering).
My guidelines during my last campaign; no spellcasting for cohort and no further animal companions/familiar/further cohort. That's because I was rather shy about it, but I'd could have lifted these limitations with that group without degenerative consequences. It would be a good way to represent a wizard's apprentice, a cleric sidekick or a bard follower...
If I had been worried about overpowering effects, I should have simply allowed NPC classes only. I doubt a warrior, even of the same level as the PC, would have endangered the campaign. At worst I would have to deal with an adept
'findel
|
Our GM does not merely allow the Leadership feat; he actively encourages us to take it. Presumably the villains can also have cohorts. A DC 15 Diplomacy check allows the player to design the cohort.
As to the domino effect, a 9th level character could have a 7th level cohort, who could in turn have a 5th level cohort. I doubt that a 5th level character would live long in a scenario designed for 9th level characters. If the cohort's cohort were killed, the cohort would probably depart, leaving the PC bereft.
PCs in our campaign are 25-point build; cohorts are 20-point build, with 1/2 PC wealth by level. None of our PCs have followers, but I suppose they would be 15-point build.
|
I don't allow it.
~Reasons~
1. Slows down gameplay.
2. Takes some of the glory from the actual players.
I have more I just can't remember them right now.
The ONLY time I allow it is when its absolutely necessary such as in a piracy based campaign for them to have enough crew-members to run the ship.
We use it with my approval for the story
If the party needs some help our party kinda needed the rogue and bard spot filled so one player Sacked his feat so the party now gets the Bard Rogue to help out as whole
We have always allowed it in big or small groups since we have been playing 3.0 I never really see a problem with it as long as the controller doesnt slow down the game
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my main campaign (in which I'm a player), my DM allowed us to take the Leadership feat with a warning not to abuse it. She allowed us to pick a cohort and design the character with the requirement that we write up backstories and find a way to implement the cohort into the current story (cohorts can't just "poof" into existence). Cohorts come in with standard PC WBL since they are PC classes, use a 25-pt-buy (or 4d6 drop lowest), are controlled in combat by the player, and roleplayed out of combat by the player. Cohorts CANNOT take Leadership.
As far as followers go, those have to be NPC classes with the heroic NPC stat layout. We can design those as well but they don't get traits. Each follower that we design must have a backstory. Important followers can have PC levels following level 3 (so 3 npc levels and a max of 3 pc levels).
So I have a Cleric cohort who follows my Paladin around, both have the same deity, their backstories actually place them together (they may as well be brothers). This creates interesting situations where if one is in trouble, the other will dive in to save him.
I ban it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I only allow the cohort. The followers don't exist in my games. That NPC's gear has to come out of the party funds, and I don't increase wealth just to hook it up with more gear.
The NPC also has its own thoughts and feelings so while it normally does what the player wants I retain the right to make say "no".
With the way I have done it I have never had issues with it.
i allow it, but they don't get hero points and i'm a pretty killer gm, i don't go out of my way to cause deaths but if they happen they happen and when your 2 levels behind the party it happens a lot.
most of my players avoid it after seeing the amount of resources you have to put into your cohort to keep it alive, or as the king is planning to do in kingmaker use it as a stay at home skill monkey for diplomacy and item crafting feats.
i normally up the cr by 1 per 2 cohorts, but then sometimes i up the CR by 1 because all the party have companions/familiars/mounts or they have both a divine and arcane spellcaster devoted to summoning, i like to challenge them.
If your banning cohorts what about golems? planar binding/ally? i let them use what they want and it all works out in the wash, if it means i get to throw another half dozen monsters into the fight and they have to use their minions to body block so be it.
it makes fights more epic, and if you crack down on people pratting about in combat turns it doesn't really slow down the game, we tend to do a full round (5 pc's, 1 familiar, 2 companions, 1 mount, 3-5 summons, and a cohort or 2 vs between 6 and 18 npc's of varying abilities) in about half an hour. if someones turn takes 3 mins the next person in the init order should be planning what they are going to do, have their rules and dice ready, explain, move and roll. talking to your group and keeping combat flowing is part of the GM's role and if someones taking ages and bogging down combat you need to speak up and try to solve the problem, if they have bitten off more than they can chew they need to either cut back or ask for help from another player who isn't controlling 7 things.
I allow the Leadership feat, but I put restrictions on cohorts. Primarily, cohorts generally cannot attack in combat, and when they do, it needs to be handled quickly - I have 7 players, so combat takes long enough as it is.
Cohorts that participate in combat without taking offensive actions are totally fine, though. One of my favorites is getting a cleric cohort (who buffs & heals) with the animal domain, so you can use your cohort's animal companion as a mount.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great podcast on the subject, here.
Mostly by banning it. I find it to be an unnecessary slow down, time hog, and power bump for one player.
But the times I have allowed it is for when a PC is developing an organisation or building a stronghold and needs someone they can trust while they are out adventuring. The cohort is a background element that I try to use by giving in game information, minor items, slightly discounted items, and just take a bit of hassel away to give the player value for the feat.
If I had a group of three players or felt the group had a gaping hole I'd consider allowing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have banned it and allowed it unchecked in 3.x days.
I've adapted it lately, since Pathfinder.
I allow it to Fighters at level 7.
Monks, Rogues and Barbarians can pull it at level 10.
Monks only attract Monks as followers but may attract any cohort.
Rangers, Bards and Magus can pull it at 12.
Rangers only attract Ranger Cohorts.
Sorcerers and Oracles can get it at level 15.
Summoners, Druids, Inquisitors, Witches and Clerics are banned from this feat. They have built in structures for simulating it already. If Divine clergy need followers they will be appointed by the church or religious body that governs such things. Summoners are already loaded with companion creatures. Witches are just to strange for ordinary folk to pick as a leader type.
Wizards and Paladins are special cases.
Wizards are strange people, they don't really attract followers. They attract apprentices, who start at lower level than cohorts. Leadership is unnecessary for this. If they want a cohort they can take the feat (at level 15) but the cohort's level is tied to apprentice level. As for followers there needs to be a well established RP reason for low level warriors to hitch up with a high level wizard who will likely get them killed in a horrible fashion.
Paladins are treated like Rangers. But they need an established cause for Leadership to be available. If the cause is a good one they may take any cohort who shares their alignment and religious inclinations. But are most likely to take another Paladin.
So basically only fighters get an unlimited form of Leadership.
Fighters make sense for this, their abilities are easily understood by the types of people who would likely become cohorts and followers. They are more likely to set up shop as local leaders or mercenary generals. They are the most appreciative of low level, mundane assistance.
Cohorts are NPCs. Players don't get to stat them. They may get to run them, but if I get even a small sense of them abusing that dynamic I'll pull the sheet and run it myself. We sometimes run very large groups, 10 people total, so we sometimes have co-DMs. Having 2 DMs makes cohorts a breeze. Also cohorts are nice when a stray player wanders in to the group.
The one thing that gets missed in this feat is it's inherent costs. Followers are more than Xgold per month cohorts should be as well. I pretty much make sure any player that takes this feat is aware that you're going to be an accountant and I will audit your books. That's another reason this is a Martials Only type of feat in our games. High level spellcasters already have a lot of bookkeeping adding more is rough.
Leadership takes the place of crafting time for the casters. While the Mages and Priests are cranking out wands and wondrous items the Martials are training the household guards, overseeing payrolls, acquiring or clearing real-estate. It works well and provides odd RP options that you might not get otherwise. Kingmaker is a great blueprint for this.
There should be role-playing pre-requisites to this.
Player: Ok, I'm taking Leadership
GM: How are you recruiting?
Player: ?????
If they want it, make them earn it. Get the bard on a recruitment drive, provide a base, and above all, make them pay out. Armies require a vast investment of time, money and organising.
|
|
I allow the feat in a strictly in a non combat way. If they have a Hold they want or a business to run they get the feat to have employees and a trusted regent or something along those lines.
Another way is... contacts. How they buy and sell stuff through people they know and trust and could be spread ut over many countries or cities, usually built in with a backstory.
* also a great way to do plot hooks. You (leadership cohort) Mr. X has disappeared or he came across some information you might be interested in.
Oddly, my group has never had need to restrict or hold back the feat. I am the only one who has ever expressed interest in the feat - for my Pally, so her could have a Cleric cohort. The reason was two-fold:
1. We needed a primary healer. 4 Secondary healers (Pally, Pally, Ranger, Bard), but no primary.
2. A cleric of Iomedae to follow me around and aid in decision-making with scripture and formal church support. Also considered making the cohort female to create a possible love sub-plot.
I had never even considered a item-creation cohort or some such until I read about it on this board. Overall, we power-game a bit more than I like, but never with leadership, it seems.
I don't usually allow it, but if I do and a player takes it they;
-Cannot already have some other kind of companion such as a familiar or an eidolon
-Can only take the feat once
-Have to be filling some niche that the party is lacking
-Have to tie the cohort into their backstory
If a player takes it, you can be sure that I will be giving it to notable enemies in the future.
I'm a player in a kingmaker game, here is how I intend to use the leadership feat:
First off, no using my Cohort in combat except huge set piece battles, he is a talented servant, not a meat shield.
Second My followers (the reason I actually am taking leadership) are 2/3rds commoners, 1/3 other npc classes. No trying to get an army of adepts or anything cheesy like that.
My Followers are included as a natural part of the story, the craftsmen and farmers and soldiers that followed me into the stolen lands, not a soulless game mechanic to make combat longer and undermine the story.
I developed a system for randomly generating followers -
D100 (percentage Die)
50% - Commoner
20% - Warrior
15% - Expert
5% - Aristocrat
5% - Adept
5% - PC Class
On PC classes, roll a D12 - 1-11 for core classes, 12 meant I could choose.
|
Leadership hasn't negatively impacted our group much. I've never GMed a group where people took the Leadership feat though, and our current GM does tend to restrict it a bit. For one, taking Leadership means you have to be the leader. Only one PC per group can take it, and it usually has to be the one with the highest Charisma unless someone else has been acting as the "face". In a group of 4-5 level 7 PCs, one additional level 5 elite NPC doesn't impact the CR as much as you'd think, and roleplaying one extra character is pretty easy, especially when you don't really have to roleplay much beyond "okay, boss". If everybody's taking it then I can see the problem, but one is no big deal.
As for who builds it, my suggestion is to offer the leader a few choices of cohort. Don't actually go through and build all these characters yet, just think of a few race/class combinations and say, "Okay, a dwarf monk, a halfling cavalier, and a tengu druid answered your fliers. Who are you hiring?" Then build them an NPC based on their choice. Don't optimize it at all-- this is your chance to make all those quirky character ideas you've no doubt thought of and never played, and see how they actually in perform in practice.
Our group is pretty mature about it. We've had a few characters grab it from time to time, but have always been pretty reasonable. Typically, it's roleplayed out. A player with a character that has a strong bond/reason/motivation to another being, but other characters don't want to provide, and the GM did not want to roleplay that angle. Recently, I had goblin leadership, and it works on the "behind the scenes" maintenence most people use, but we've had no proublems with our encounters that included our cohort so far. Leadership is fine, provided people don't purposefully abuse it. Yes, it's an extremely powerful boost to a character at the cost of one feat. It's also a very large siphon of that character's funds. (Typically, in addition to gearing/equipping off of the player's gold, they are entitled to 50% of that character's earnings.)
So, that massive ammount of gold can be spent on a plethora of magic items, or even mercenaries. Both affect combat greatly at personal cost, and they typically don't change the party's CR. (In our games at least. Just cause you're fighting on someone's side does not make you fighting ALONGside them.)
Out of those options, at least I get some conversation with Leadership.
I have no problem with it, so long as it's not every single player at the table doing it, and they are doing so with justifiable reasons in-game. Saying "I want a healbot," or "I want a wizard to buff me with spells all the time," doesn't cut it.
I'm shocked by the amount of "I ban it" replies in this topic. :o
I guess it depends on the players. Players need a good story to take the feat, more so than other feats.
Having a cohort around doesn't really make fights much easier in my experience (as a DM), it actually added the difficulty of keeping the cohort alive. A cohort is much more likely to die since they're lower level than the party and the enemies they fight, which makes for some very critical saves for their cohort(s).
So I haven't seen a good reason, not even a slight need, that I need to ban that. Great feat, for both players and DM although I can imagine in large parties it might be a bit too much if they're taking a lot of time to compolete their actions.
I allow it, and it seems that my DM will allow it for the current Council of Thieves campaign, given the amount of interesting NPCs available as cohorts.
We allow it, but our group is small, 4-5 players. The Cohort that is found, is usually there to fill a role that is missing within the party and that is usually there to help support the party, not take the glory from the PC. Overall we have never had any problems from using it. The followers are never really a factor as they tend to stay at home and keep the home fires burning, in reality they are just a group of low level npcs that can be counted on by at least one of the PCs in the group.
|
1) The player did not get to construct the cohort. If he was actively searching for a cohort to fill a specific role he could specify that, but the GM was in charge of the actual specs. It's an NPC, after all.2) Cohorts took up a half-share of XP, and sometimes treasure.
3) Due to Note 1, it was not possible for the player to minmax a combo team. Due to Note 2 and the fact that extra characters on the field meant combat took longer, there was an unspoken rule that only one cohort would be used in battle, and it would only be used by someone who was not already using summons or pets. So it generally wasn't abused.
I play it very similarly. Cohorts must come from existing NPCs in the game and the PC must have a positive releationship with that NPC before he can become a cohort. This encouraged roleplaying even with foes as many opponents in my games are neutral and sometimes good.
It also prevented the min max abuse.I did not dip into everyone's treasure though. It was the responsisbility of the PC to equip his own follower so his feat only affected him.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
1) The player did not get to construct the cohort. If he was actively searching for a cohort to fill a specific role he could specify that, but the GM was in charge of the actual specs. It's an NPC, after all.2) Cohorts took up a half-share of XP, and sometimes treasure.
3) Due to Note 1, it was not possible for the player to minmax a combo team. Due to Note 2 and the fact that extra characters on the field meant combat took longer, there was an unspoken rule that only one cohort would be used in battle, and it would only be used by someone who was not already using summons or pets. So it generally wasn't abused.
I play it very similarly. Cohorts must come from existing NPCs in the game and the PC must have a positive releationship with that NPC before he can become a cohort. This encouraged roleplaying even with foes as many opponents in my games are neutral and sometimes good.
It also prevented the min max abuse.I did not dip into everyone's treasure though. It was the responsisbility of the PC to equip his own follower so his feat only affected him.
This is also what I do. The player can either select an NPC from the campaign that they have a good relationship with, or they can justify getting a cohort in some other way - "My knight wants a squire", "My pirate recruits a first mate" etc. I design the cohort, so it generally won't fit together with the PC like a puzzle piece. Once the cohort enters play, the player can make levelling decisions for it. I discourage cohorts at tables with more than 5 players, and encourage them if there are 3 or less.
Generally the groups I game with feel that the PC has to equip their cohort out their own share of treasure, which can spread them fairly thin if they want both to be effective. This was very noticable in the SS game I recently finished running, by level 15 or so the cohorts just weren't keeping up. It's also a bit of a low treasure AP which compounded the issue.
|
|
I'm shocked by the amount of "I ban it" replies in this topic. :o
Having a cohort around doesn't really make fights much easier in my experience (as a DM), it actually added the difficulty of keeping the cohort alive.
It's not even really the combat effectiveness of the cohort. It's the "table hogging" factor.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of the "I ban it" replies are from GMs that have large tables already... I know I do. 6 players consistently, sometimes 7. Having one player essentially running 2 characters in combat just takes too darn long.
And as some others have said, I'll allow it on a VERY limited basis. Cohorts and followers never show up on my map boards. If you want them in the background doing something... fine, especially if it's for RP purposes or background flavor. Otherwise, it's banned.
|
My DM allows it to one PC per game and it has to be an NPC we've made friends with through the course of the campaign. In our kingmaker game it started off as Boken the crazy hermit and then became some bard we found that I don't remember the name of. He picked feats and such when necessary and controlled them out of combat, but during combat the PC could generally do whatever with them. If the DM didn't think the cohort would do something, he'd say so.
The followers have mostly been in the back ground. Going back to the kingmaker game, our spy master took leadership and his followers were whores, thieves, bums and various other people in his spy network.
I've been playing D&D since about 1983. I now play Pathfinder, but even during the 3rd/3.5 run, there was one thing I absolutely forbade in the games I ran. The Leadership feat. And from the reactions of serious disappoint I get from some players, it seems to me that that was the right call. Everyone seems to want to take it, to give their character a second character to play, and who can blame them? For the price of a single feat slot, you essentially get a second full set of character class abilities at your disposal. (I know technically that the cohorts are NPCs under the DM's control, but my games usually have 5-6 players...if they each take this feat well, who are we kidding? I'm gonna let them run their own cohorts to avoid the pain in the ass it would be for me to run them all.)
This to me seems about the most unbalancing thing in the game, and it has always amazed me that it keeps popping up in other editions (3.5, Pathfinder... I'm not sure about 4th Ed, as I don't play it). Essentially, it seems, cohorts and such are treated as "summoned monsters", in that they are taken into account in the character's CR. After all, they used a feat slot to take it, so it's part of THEIR CR, right? To break it down even further, if I have 5 players at the table, I tailor the adventure for 5 characters. If any or all of them have cohorts....well, I still only make the game for 5 characters, because their cohorts DON'T COUNT. And if you DO make the adventure tougher because of the cohorts, well then the experience points and treasure just get crazy, and characters level up faster than you can say "Monty Haul".
It seems a no-win situation (from the DM's perspective) to me. But perhaps I'm missing something about this feat? Perhaps there is some aspect of granting players a cohort and small army at their disposal that makes this completely game-breaking feat actually usable?
How do you handle the Leadership feat in your games? More specifically, how do you keep it from causing serious imbalance in the game?
---...
With care :)
A good thing is to don't give a cohort but a nice mount or similar.With benefits comes disadvantages. If you want a lot of followers you have to provide a place and food for them. If you are an outsider in the political context the former authority will not be happy if someone creates a little army that they can't control.
Consider for example this creative use of leadership: for a rogue, you achieve higher ranks in the rogue guild, a cleric or inquisitor will have some authority in the curch. These character will not have an army but they can give orders to submitted, maybe an informer, or a priest, etc. This is good also for character that have not a fortress and go often in adventure.
I allow PCs to obtain cohorts and followers without using the feat. To obtain a cohort they must merely find and recruit an NPC who is willing to accompany them on they're adventures. To obtain followers they must reach ninth level ("name level") and have sufficient prestige to attract them, such as being the leader of an organization such as a thieves' guild or founding a barony. I also encourage low-level groups to bring along NPC hirelings, as my adventures tend to be slightly more difficult than the baseline.
My current rule of thumb: no more than 6 minis on the table. You can all take Leadership if you want, but if there are five players only one cohort is going to be with them. Otherwise my DM brain would explode.
Wow! There's a lot of great advice and examples up there! Thank you everyone!
It's nice to see that I am not the only one who wrestles with this problem. I was a little surprised to see how many others just outright ban Leadership as well!
---
Taffer
I'm shocked at the number of people who banned it. I've never played any games where a DM/GM banned it.
I allow it exactly as written.
As a GM, I create the NPC or find a stock NPC that fits the request. The PC must command him in battle and assign him tasks. The cohorts or followers make their own decisions and keep their own consul.
I have never seen it cause a problem under any version of D&D or Pathfinder, even with hardcore min/maxers and power gamers.
I think too many people think of it as an easy way to play multiple PCs or have a horde of zombie-like thralls, but that is not the way it is written nor intended. If used as such, I can understand how it could cause balance issues.
|
|
In an old 3.5 game I was in, one of the players was playing a Wizard, and he took the Leadership feat. His cohort was in charge of his Wizard's School (and thus didn't adventure with him), and all of his followers were students in his school.
Essentially, it wasn't a useful feat for the group, but was kind of a cool concept. Plus it gave the DM the option of working it into the campaign, if needed.
Another character I had (who was a Paladin) used the Leadership feat to gain a better mount than the Special Mount I had access to (I think the DM didn't allow the option to turn my Special Mount into a Cohort as per the 3.5 DMG rules). I did it mainly to get access to a flying special mount; gave it Cleric levels so it could heal itself (so I didn't have to waste actions to specifically heal it).
(It seems this as already been mentioned, so this post was probably a waste of space, but oh well)
There should be role-playing pre-requisites to this.
Player: Ok, I'm taking Leadership
GM: How are you recruiting?
Player: ?????
Another PC back in the 3.5 days took it and didn't want to read it any further than "You get Cohort." We level at some point and he goes to level it and I asked him if it gained enough XP and the look on his face was priceless. We finally did the quick math and it didn't gain enough so he just dismissed his current and attracted a new one......it happen to be the one he just dismissed and and he said it gain a level in 6 seconds......DM went for it, I pretty much think of getting a new group.
|
|
Well, the=at all depends on the type of campaign. For instance, it mainly depends on who the PCs are. For instance, if they remain adventurers, I won't let them get the Leadership feat for the reasons as above. But, for example, if they want to get into politics and/or involved with specific guilds or organizations, i can allow them to have followers. But even so, I'm tentative to allow this feat.