So a sort of living world group of mine are discussing the potential use of leadership in our setting instead of defaulting into banning it. Each of use are coming up with our own format to present and then we'll decide on one. This is what I have so far:
Players may recruit a cohort after feat investment inside of a quest or campaign tbd by the GM after the GM has determined the leadership score of the player character. After completion of the session the player may design the cohort using the following rules:
I feel like my format presented has a very strict control over what cohorts can/can't be.
1. A player may only recruit a cohort, and may only ever have 1 cohort.
2. Cohorts may only take levels in NPC classes unless a feat or ability specifies otherwise.
3. Cohorts may only be made from allowable races.
4. Cohorts use the NPC heroic stat array.
5. Cohorts do not use the Automatic Bonus Progression.
6. Cohorts use the NPC heroic wealth by level array, this progresses as a cohort levels.
7. A Cohort may never have a cohort or follower of their own no matter the circumstances.
8. Cohorts never receive gold from a session, instead they may only receive wealth through leveling. Their wbl represents their salary from their master.
9. Cohorts do not receive a consumables allowance, if a player wants to equip their cohort with consumables they must do so out of their own pocket, or with their own allowance.
10. Cohorts are controlled similarly to animal companions, the player may roleplay both his PC and his cohort.
11. A GM may refuse the use of cohorts at their table.
Please let me know if you see any major holes in this format, and please share any leadership formats you like to use at your table as well more ideas the better.
From a strict role-playing/versimilitude perspective, I'd have to ask how you mechanically have apprentices under this system.
You're a wizard. Over the course of time you form a bond with a young man who shows some interest in learning the arcane arts. We'll say for now he's an expert 1 (merchant family, learned the basics of the trade). How would you reflect over time his growth and development as a wizard? Since can only have NPC classes, he'll always be stuck without even the beginnings of magic.
This same idea could apply to any class: a cleric recruiting an acolyte, a knight training a squire, etc. Classes don't give abilities all that often that say "this NPC gains a level in a class of your choice". Nor do feats.
Just figured I'd ask, maybe I'm missing something here.
Here's how my GM handles leadership/cohorts.
First and foremost, while not completely sandboxy, our campaigns are never set on the kind of rails modules and adventure paths are. There's usually some downtime and the PC's have interests and responsibility outside of simply adventuring. (yes i know not all adventure paths/modules but for the sake of this discussion just go with it k?)
Cohorts and followers are basically the support on demand that occurs for these side interests, be they running a business, a town, a nation, a school, whatever. Without the leadership feat our gm will usually throw problems in whatever side interest we have at us, it will eat up downtime and prevent things like research, item creation, retraining, earning gold etc etc. By taking a cohort and followers its basically vetting competent and loyal help. You aren't likely to find your cohort embezzling the way a hireling might. Minor adventure points can be dealt with via the cohort. Cohorts can help with crafting items, research, or earning gold with minimal GM interference. Our gm WILL bother the PC's with petty crap far below their pay grade, just like anyone running something without competent help can expect.
Cohorts and followers rarely involve themselves in combats with the PC's, usually this situation only occurs when combat happens at the pc's home base (in which case woe to the attacker most of the time) or if another player can't make it and the party needs a warm body to help survive an adventure. The missing PC is assumed to be handling whatever interest is going on in place of the cohort.
This works well for us as generally our groups seek IC influence and power beyond just pew pew. YMMV
So a sort of living world group of mine are discussing the potential use of leadership in our setting instead of defaulting into banning it. Each of use are coming up with our own format to present and then we'll decide on one. This is what I have so far:
Players may recruit a cohort after feat investment inside of a quest or campaign tbd by the GM after the GM has determined the leadership score of the player character. After completion of the session the player may design the cohort using the following rules:
I feel like my format presented has a very strict control over what cohorts can/can't be.
1. A player may only recruit a cohort, and may only ever have 1 cohort.
2. Cohorts may only take levels in NPC classes unless a feat or ability specifies otherwise.
3. Cohorts may only be made from allowable races.
4. Cohorts use the NPC heroic stat array.
5. Cohorts do not use the Automatic Bonus Progression.
6. Cohorts use the NPC heroic wealth by level array, this progresses as a cohort levels.
7. A Cohort may never have a cohort or follower of their own no matter the circumstances.
8. Cohorts never receive gold from a session, instead they may only receive wealth through leveling. Their wbl represents their salary from their master.
9. Cohorts do not receive a consumables allowance, if a player wants to equip their cohort with consumables they must do so out of their own pocket, or with their own allowance.
10. Cohorts are controlled similarly to animal companions, the player may roleplay both his PC and his cohort.
11. A GM may refuse the use of cohorts at their table.Please let me know if you see any major holes in this format, and please share any leadership formats you like to use at your table as well more ideas the better.
Your rules are so limiting that it makes cohorts not particularly suited for combat.
Honestly, if I were a player in your game and I read these rules what I would be thinking is "This person wanted to ban cohorts and leadership, but didn't think they could get away with it so they made these restrictions instead".
As a GM, I just ban cohorts. I'm honest with my players and tell them that I think that an extra character for the cost of a feat is too strong, unless everyone takes it. And if everyone takes it, then the party is twice as big as intended and then as a GM I have to do a lot more to balance combat. So I just don't allow it on those grounds.
If you are going to allow leadership I would recommend you work it like this.
1. All players get it for free.
2. Cohorts are only present when at the players base or the party is short
3. A cohort is designed by the GM to fit thematically with the characters actions, an outlandish character may get a bard, a pious player may get a paladin.
4. Cohort is always 2 levels behind, Charisma modifier is for followers, players can give some names and personalities if they want.
5. No item creation feats so they don't become item making monkeys.
I recommend the idea of leadership as a means to show the players are coming along in the world and people are starting to follow them. It's not so much about extra power but a mechanical way of showing how many people are in the Rogues thieves guild, the fighters mercenary group, followers of the cleric, in the Barbarians tribe, etc
From a strict role-playing/versimilitude perspective, I'd have to ask how you mechanically have apprentices under this system.
You're a wizard. Over the course of time you form a bond with a young man who shows some interest in learning the arcane arts. We'll say for now he's an expert 1 (merchant family, learned the basics of the trade). How would you reflect over time his growth and development as a wizard? Since can only have NPC classes, he'll always be stuck without even the beginnings of magic.
This same idea could apply to any class: a cleric recruiting an acolyte, a knight training a squire, etc. Classes don't give abilities all that often that say "this NPC gains a level in a class of your choice". Nor do feats.
Just figured I'd ask, maybe I'm missing something here.
tbf their is somewhat a suggestion in the rules that pulls towards that cohorts only have NPC classes anyway, we just spell it out here. like the Squire/lightbearer/and groom feats suggest.
As far as that goes the adept npc class is a magic using class that could completely fill the role of a Wizards apprentice.
So a sort of living world group of mine are discussing the potential use of leadership in our setting instead of defaulting into banning it. Each of use are coming up with our own format to present and then we'll decide on one. This is what I have so far:
Players may recruit a cohort after feat investment inside of a quest or campaign tbd by the GM after the GM has determined the leadership score of the player character. After completion of the session the player may design the cohort using the following rules:
I feel like my format presented has a very strict control over what cohorts can/can't be.
1. A player may only recruit a cohort, and may only ever have 1 cohort.
2. Cohorts may only take levels in NPC classes unless a feat or ability specifies otherwise.
3. Cohorts may only be made from allowable races.
4. Cohorts use the NPC heroic stat array.
5. Cohorts do not use the Automatic Bonus Progression.
6. Cohorts use the NPC heroic wealth by level array, this progresses as a cohort levels.
7. A Cohort may never have a cohort or follower of their own no matter the circumstances.
8. Cohorts never receive gold from a session, instead they may only receive wealth through leveling. Their wbl represents their salary from their master.
9. Cohorts do not receive a consumables allowance, if a player wants to equip their cohort with consumables they must do so out of their own pocket, or with their own allowance.
10. Cohorts are controlled similarly to animal companions, the player may roleplay both his PC and his cohort.
11. A GM may refuse the use of cohorts at their table.Please let me know if you see any major holes in this format, and please share any leadership formats you like to use at your table as well more ideas the better.
I really don't see the point of having a cohort under this system. They are likely to die in combat if they are only an NPC class. It also kills immersion that they can't be given gold. I have donated gold to another player's cohort so they would have better gear. In-game, I had no reason not to.
However I could be wrong if the table playing style has things that I dont know about.
I am going to tell you how I did things as a GM when I saw the feat being used more
2. Cohorts may level in PC classes. If not they would just die in my games.
3. Cohorts may only be made from any race that I allow the PC's to use.
4. Cohorts use the NPC heroic stat array.
5. I am assuming the automatic bonus progression is from unchained. They would follow whatever the PC's used in my game.
5. I put in enough extra loot to cover what an NPC of a certain level should have. If the player wants them to have more gear he can pay for it.
6. nothing to put here
7. A Cohort may never have a cohort or follower of their own no matter the circumstances.
8. I don't break anything up into a consumable allowances vs other things as listed in the book. It is all just there. How much is used for consumables is up to the player.
10. Cohorts are controlled similarly to animal companions, the player may roleplay both his PC and his cohort.
11. Anything can be refused by the GM(me), but I try to have a reason for it.
With all that being said I really dont like the idea of an extra member for just a feat. I will just allow you to run two PC's. However the table is aware that the max number of PC's is limited so everyone can't do this.
The feat requires the cohort to be with the party in order to gain experience. Your rules seem to reduce their power compared to a PC. This is on top of the minimum two level lower limit to their level.
Since your cohorts cannot well handle the heat of combat, you will quickly loose them. Being limited to a single cohort ever, means the feat becomes a dead feat quickly unless you use a lot of raise dead spells.
My thoughts on your limits:
1. A player may only recruit a cohort, and may only ever have 1 cohort.
This limits the availability, and may cause a dead feat. Either that or an overly timid and under level cohort.
2. Cohorts may only take levels in NPC classes unless a feat or ability specifies otherwise.
Nerfs them, and disallows some interesting combos like a witch with a coven of witches. Livable, but devalues the feat.
3. Cohorts may only be made from allowable races.
No big deal.
4. Cohorts use the NPC heroic stat array.
No big deal.
5. Cohorts do not use the Automatic Bonus Progression.
Fine if it applies to PCs also. Otherwise messes up wealth allocation since they need far more to get up to snuff compared to PCs.
6. Cohorts use the NPC heroic wealth by level array, this progresses as a cohort levels.
No big deal. Note: the heroic array is usually for PC class NPCs.
SRD:
7. A Cohort may never have a cohort or follower of their own no matter the circumstances.
Standard rule for the leadership feat.
8. Cohorts never receive gold from a session, instead they may only receive wealth through leveling. Their wbl represents their salary from their master.
Free gold? Wow. Normally they get the PC cast off magic, and are given gold from their leader's share.
9. Cohorts do not receive a consumables allowance, if a player wants to equip their cohort with consumables they must do so out of their own pocket, or with their own allowance.
Normal.
10. Cohorts are controlled similarly to animal companions, the player may roleplay both his PC and his cohort.
Normal.
11. A GM may refuse the use of cohorts at their table.
If you mean overrule an action, fine. If you mean a per session ban of their use, you are denying them gaining experience, and thus preventing them from leveling if done too much. If you ban per session, at least award the experience to them anyway.
/cevah
This is my experience with cohorts:
1. A party of three 3.5 PCs: A LG human scout (me), a N? human ranger/wizard/truespeaker, and a CN human aristocrat/bard. The bard took Leadership and got a CN gnome rogue/cleric. We honestly liked the gnome more than the aristobard. He was fun and useful and never outshone any PC. A positive situation.
2. In Kingmaker, the Fighter/Cavalier "King" took Leadership and got a healbot cleric cohort. The rest of the party was a rogue/witch/arcane trickster, a dwarf barbarian/magus (me), a ranger archer, and I think a sorcerer or wizard. So we needed the healing. Overall, a very positive situation.
3. In a homebrew PF campaign, we had 3 PCs: an Dark Tapestry oracle, a duelist-type fighter, and a half-orc inquisitor of Desna with a greataxe (me), later replaced with a human paladin sword & board after the inquisitor was owlbear chow. It was a gritty 15 point campaign, but each player also controlled a NPC "henchman" that took Warrior levels. So we had good action economy and spare bodies so the GM could be pretty hard core (2 out of 3 NPCs died during the campaign, plus my inquisitor), which is pretty intense for our gaming group. It was nice having the safety net of having a spare character to play if one died, especially since it didn't upset the story. Also, NPC Warriors are competent but not fancy. They play really fast in combat. The one I controlled use a heavy crossbow, so half of his rounds were "I reload," and on to the next character. A very positive experience!
TL/DR: If used respectfully, cohorts are great at shoring up party weaknesses without outshining PCs.
Sounds like your group agrees with Leadership being abusable and people are thinking along the same lines? So... I'd wonder if you could leave it as a gentleman's agreement of "take a cohort for RP/convenience/fun reasons, not to have an extra set of action economy", honestly. As long as everyone's on the same page, I'm not sure it needs much more nitty-gritty, and that gives well-handled cohorts a bit more design leeway. But that's just my thoughts, you know your own games best.
This is, for the record, my own thoughts on cohorts. I do think it's fine for them to be of mechanical use when it comes to stuff the players don't feel like doing, but that's it. For all that crafting cohorts are complained about, I'd honestly prefer a player taking a crafting cohort, actually paying them a few GP once in a while or something and generally treating them like a person and not a robot, and them crafting stuff for the whole party, than have a player need to take crafting feats despite no one having fun taking them (especially not with the risk of a single player being pushed to give up all their feats for it and be relegated to that role themselves). The point of the game is for it to be fun. If no one would have fun having crafting feats, or prepared casting, or trapfinding, or whatever, and it's needed... why not let them take an easy out?
I'd just still expect them to roleplay it reasonably instead of just "this is Bob, he makes magic stuff for free and casts Raise Dead for us, it's okay he has no dreams or interests of his own anyway".
My experience with cohorts is that since they are a minimum of two levels below their leader, they aren't all that powerful, only just powerful enough to contribute. The issues they carry are different. First, it allows characters to diversify their power into other domains, like a wizard getting a barbarian bodyguard. Not only is this not intended, it also berges into other characters' domains. Second, they allow for fine control of another character, which is a problem. Third, they bypass limits in the game like magic item creators serving the character trustily.
These require a different approach.
For the first, characters should have cohorts of their own class. For the second, the player shouldn't control the cohort. They are NPCs. Finally, to avoid other problems, the GM should make them, not the PCs.
The remaining issue is that controlling the cohort takes time from the GM. This means that it might be a good idea to limit them to one.
My experience with cohorts is that since they are a minimum of two levels below their leader, they aren't all that powerful, only just powerful enough to contribute. The issues they carry are different. First, it allows characters to diversify their power into other domains, like a wizard getting a barbarian bodyguard. Not only is this not intended, it also berges into other characters' domains. Second, they allow for fine control of another character, which is a problem. Third, they bypass limits in the game like magic item creators serving the character trustily.
Diversifying into other domains also happens with multiclassing.
The class barged into may not be a class in the party. So, stepping on another players toes may not apply.Fine control is also given to 'pets' like animal companions and familiars.
As to having crafters being trusty, I think if you cannot trust your party's crafters, you have bigger player problems. In the games I have played in over the years, it is assumed that the party is together because they want to be and trust each other enough not to back-stab other player characters.
These require a different approach.
For the first, characters should have cohorts of their own class. For the second, the player shouldn't control the cohort. They are NPCs. Finally, to avoid other problems, the GM should make them, not the PCs.
The remaining issue is that controlling the cohort takes time from the GM. This means that it might be a good idea to limit them to one.
Ouch.
If I recall correctly, 1st edition followers were often not the same class. I have the 2nd ed files, and they say nothing about same class, but rather say they come from any source. As to the caster getting a martial for a bodyguard, that is quite a common trope. That said, it does limit the cohort some, but so much that I would complain if stated ahead of time.
As to the player controlling them vs. the GM, there are mechanical issues. The player has a lot more time to devote to deciding the action of the cohort than the GM. The GM still has veto if that action goes against the cohort's character concept. Also, the cohort is a character feature in that it is a feat spent. If the GM controls the cohort all the time, they deny the player the feat. If I could only have a cohort that the GM controls, I would not want one.
As to the GM making them, I am fine with that. However, the player needs to have some input, because they are "choosing" to accept the NPC for the position of "cohort", so there has to be something they like about the NPC or they would not be chosen. If the player has no input, the GM again denies the player their feat.
Limiting the cohorts to one because of the GM must spend lots of time on them is only reasonable if the GM always controls them. If all they need to do is say "yeah, they would do that" or "no they would not", then their time is not used up even with one cohort per player.
I see the biggest issue being the action economy. However, if the players have their actions ready when their turn come up, then play goes quick enough.
One way I have seen them defined is to be linked to their leader, and they do not do what other party members say unless it helps their leader (when in a rescue situation) or when their leader says they want the cohort to do what is asked. They also stay with their leader, so the above mentioned barbarian stays by the wizard to keep others away, but does not go into the fray with the rest of the melee leaving the ranged types like his leader behind. Cohort casters also mainly buff/heal their leader, and only help the party when the leader asks them to. This changes their dynamic a fair amount while keeping them less involved in combat.
/cevah