Playing a very strange Pathfinder game online now, it being like an MMORPG rather that an RPG of one single party.
I was hoping to introduce leadership into the game somehow, possibly using the followers as castle defenders when one group attacks another's castle. But we all know how broken it is. I was hoping that perhaps someone knows of a changed version of Leadership we can use instead.
Or perhaps just general suggestions of how to handle it (without just saying no).
I'm not really sure what you are referring to as 'broken'. Although, all the campaigns I've played in, the followers never where really used, as they where always back in the home base, doing guildish things. My Cohort was the only one who ever made an appearance.
the cohort is better than an animal companion, but it is about equal in power to an eidolon
it won't deal the damage of a level appropriate eidolon, but it brings different options
big issue, is the 2 level hit
and the fact you have to pay for all of your cohort's gear.
The cohort is a character not an animal companion. Think of a spouse as an analogy. They are loyal, loving, and supportive, but are not robots. The cohort has their own goals, interests, desires, etc.
the cohort is an NPC ally
just like
an Animal Companion
a Mount
an Eidolon
a Familiar
thing is, a lot of players are given permission to run and design the above four
why can't they Run and Design their own cohort?
in fact, i'd rate a cohort more Loyal and Supportive, because instead of getting it as a class feature, they actually spent a feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the animal companion, mount, eidolon, or familiar called an 'ally'? I'd like to know because the game is filled with NPC allies and if being an ally means that the character is 100% submissive to the PC, that changes a lot.The cohort is a character not an animal companion. Think of a spouse as an analogy. They are loyal, loving, and supportive, but are not robots. The cohort has their own goals, interests, desires, etc.the cohort is an NPC ally
just like
an Animal Companion
a Mount
an Eidolon
a Familiar
a common leadership house rule, for the few games that allow it is
players who spent the feat, get to customize their cohort as appropriate for the setting and campaign, and get to run it in combat
lets look at the common house rules for eidolons, familiars, animal companions and mounts
players get to customize them and get to run them in combat
problem is, all 5 were designed with the intent of the DM deciding their combat actions.
What I've done in my campaign is allow only one person to take the Leadership feat in the party. The companion is 3 levels lower, and I approve actions, feats, skills, and spells taken by the companion. So far this has worked out well.
I've never had a problem with Leadership. The Cohort is powerful but their own person. I let the player customize and play the cohort but I role play them. If they are abused the cohort will leave and the player can't get a new one as they just have useless cohort now. They are free to kill their cohort and get new one though suffering the -2 penalty or they can try to make amends at get the cohort back.
When somebody takes Leadership in my games, I create the character based on what they say they want. No min-maxing the cohort, and they're usually built on fewer points than a standard PC would be. They have to make sense as to why the PC would attract this follower, and they can lose them based on what they do. The cohorts are fully-fledged NPCs and may have their own motivations and requests of the PC.
|
Customizing your cohort is just a simple solution for lazy DMs, From what I understand, a Cohort is an NPC you've convinced to follow you, whatever which way. So the DM should create some sort of System for the player to acquire a cohort, such as a quest, or the NPC witnessed the Player in action and followed him in awe. In my Kingmaker Campaign, we run into a lot of people, whom I've chosen to demand Fealty rather than kill, and as such, When I pick up leadership, I'm going to choose one of my followers and promote them to Cohort.
Leadership is broken due to the laziness of the DM, you Fix it by not being lazy, done and done.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In one campaign I altered Leadership to provide an NPC class (Expert, Adept, Warrior) instead of player class, and that character would serve as a "resource" character who wouldn't adventure but provided a benefit as a Sage, Crafter, bouncer at the Inn, etc. Ultimate Campaign has fleshed out the "downtime" system to provide many of the benefits I altered Leadership to have, so I no longer use Leadership.
Otherwise, Leadership has been used by everyone I've seen as a way to get a "healbot" or "buffbot," and at high levels it slowed down play as gamers adjudicate the tremendous range of multiple PC character actions. But that rant is for another post.
I have also treated followers as "hirelings" (there was a free Paizo supplement where hirelings provided minor benefits like a guide who grants bonuses to survival or porters to carry things). While none have any real levels, they provide a measureable benefit. Just don't make the jerk GM move and kill them off every time the groupies are left to guard the horses.
Three things to remember about Leadership:
- A cohort can never be more than 2 levels lower than the PC with the feat, regardless of Leadership score
- Leadership score is not static, and you can lose and gain followers and advancement of cohort can be stunted depending on what happens in the campaign.
- Cohorts and followers are normally equipped with NPC level gear. The PC can certainly equip them better but they have to have the resources to do so (which means not spending their money on themselves or the party).
Now, when Leadership comes up in my campaigns, this is what I do:
1) The player tells me what they want out of their cohort (and followers, as needed).
2) I as GM design the cohort, pulling from my campaign notes to find an appropriate NPC or NPC concept to fit the bill.
3) I okay the cohort design with the player, making sure the design I have come up with reflects what the player wants, and make changes based on the player's suggestion. My designing it makes sure it fits with the world, is built according to a narrative within the campaign and isn't just seen as a game mechanic (and avoids optimization cheese if necessary, but I certainly will build the character to be effective), but I make sure the player is happy with the result before it gets implemented.
Basically creating the cohort is a player-GM collaboration. This tends to avoid any potential "breakage."
I usually roleplay the cohort's personality but the player runs them in combat (so I can focus on controlling the bad guys).
I've not experienced Leadership as broken per se, but it can be a challenge to keep track of everyone. Again, collaboration between player and GM is key.
If the player can't trust the GM and the GM can't trust the player to come up with a fair design, that's not the fault of the feat, that's the fault of the GM and player failing to play on good terms with each other and treat each other with respect.
Customizing your cohort is just a simple solution for lazy DMs, From what I understand, a Cohort is an NPC you've convinced to follow you, whatever which way. So the DM should create some sort of System for the player to acquire a cohort, such as a quest, or the NPC witnessed the Player in action and followed him in awe. In my Kingmaker Campaign, we run into a lot of people, whom I've chosen to demand Fealty rather than kill, and as such, When I pick up leadership, I'm going to choose one of my followers and promote them to Cohort.
Leadership is broken due to the laziness of the DM, you Fix it by not being lazy, done and done.
i have no problem with petitioning for cohorts of specific roles
just highly specific cohorts take longer
a cute young female tiefling wizard, is slower than wizard, which is is slower than arcane caster, all are but faster than cute young female tiefling wizard who specializes in conjuration, is trained in the teleportation subschool, and primarily uses summons.
The fundamental problem of cohorts is that if the GM controls them the player is trading a feat that is his for a cohort that isn't. If the player controls them it's nearly impossible to make them worth only a feat.
It's really something that should never have been a feat.
true
we should just beef up the other feats in general to compensate
merge a lot of pointless combat feat chains and make them scale with BAB
The fundamental problem of cohorts is that if the GM controls them the player is trading a feat that is his for a cohort that isn't. If the player controls them it's nearly impossible to make them worth only a feat.
I've not seen this is practice, either way.
It is a potent feat, but it also comes with a lot of strings attached and liabilities. A player taking Leadership is volunteering to feed, clothe, protect a gaggle of people. The PC who makes a poor decision and gets a cohort or follower killed suffers a number of consequences--not in the least, if the player is a talented and devoted one, suffering the grief off a loss of a loyal ally. A cohort and followers aren't and shouldn't be mindless or blindly loyal, they're not just a mechanical feature, it's a whole other layer of narrative to the story. It's a feat that creates a lot of work but it doesn't necessarily break things.
As for who controls what, I noted the way I do it is GM plays the cohort and followers' personalities, and player controls them in combat (which makes it easier on me as the GM--it's something I greatly WANT, I do not see it at all as a "power" I am giving up). This means the player needs to roleplay effectively with his allies (played by me) but can make sure their tactics work with the party.
|
|
Leadership was created so that players could have little homies. A DM could just home brew it in, but the feat gives base mechanics. Just limit the cohorts available to the setting, I love the idea of having bros and little dudes that look up to you, and its especially flavorful in Kingmaker. I think that by Raw, Leadership is unrefined, it need a lot of work to be fair, but there are plenty of other things by raw that are broke, like wizard.
Three things to remember about Leadership:
- A cohort can never be more than 2 levels lower than the PC with the feat, regardless of Leadership score
Just the opposite. "Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two OR MORE levels lower than yourself." CRB, pg 129.
Therefore, a cohort can never be closer than 2 levels lower.
Three things to remember about Leadership:
- A cohort can never be more than 2 levels lower than the PC with the feat, regardless of Leadership score
Just the opposite. "Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two OR MORE levels lower than yourself." CRB, pg 129.
Therefore, a cohort can never be closer than 2 levels lower.
I think what DQ meant to says was "A cohort can never be higher than 2 levels below the PC..."
In other words, I think you're both saying the same thing, it's just that one word choice is less confusing...
I concur with the general consensus. Let a min-maxer player custom-build his own cohort to meet his exact specifications, much like Dr. Frankenstein building a monster BUT without any of the flaws or failures of that ill-fated experiment, and Leadership is broken. But, let the GM build a balanced and story-appropriate NPC follower according to the player's wishes, and the GM retains, at minimum, veto power over the player's control of said NPC follower, and the Leadership feat is interesting but not necessarily overpowered - just keep the Ultimate Campaign guidelines in mind too, and all will be well.
A couple of points from my own experience:
1. A level 4-5 humanoid with PC classes is a pretty significant person in the world, already. Even if they're built wiith sub-standard equipment and NPC stat array, they would be a powerful person in most towns. So, why exactly have they just appeared out of the ether and agreed to help your PC? Because he reached level 7?
Start a cohort at Level 1, or possibly Level 2 with 1 level in an NPC class. They should be a beginner adventurer just learning the ropes from the PC.
2. By level 11 (or earlier), a pure caster has easily eclipsed a melee in power. A cleric or wizard would have to be extremely sub-optimal not to have overtaken a fighter or barbarian in power and versatility, even with the two level difference. And frankly they would have to be fairly stupid and naive not to realize it.
The buffbot/healbot might very likely outgrow their position quickly. Why were they following this PC in the first place? How was the PC helping them advance in their skills and abilities? The cohort should be a protege of the PC, not his perfect complementary class.
... just my two cp.
If I recall correctly, according to devs (it eludes me which one(s)) a cohort is a part of the PC build, as they have acquired it by spending a feat. Thus the player should get to build the cohort.
I have no problem with that personally. I do agree however that this makes the feat ridiculously powerful. For example if the player gets a wizard cohort, the PC essentially gains the ability to cast spells as a wizard of his own level -2, independently of his own action economy.
I have thought about Leadership, and in my opinion it does need some nerfing, which i personally would achieve by nerfing the maximum level to Character level -4 and adding the possibility to add 1 to the cohort maximum level with another feat spent, up to -2.
Also (what I'm already doing) I don't let a character have both a cohort and followers. They have to get the feat twice for that. (and no this doesnt allow to opt for two cohorts, or twice as many followers)
Just my 2 cents: I just ban Leadership. That's more because I don't want my players gain allies just with a feat. They have to interact. Leadership have a variable score, but unless you do some really bad thing, you can rather easy take the max. So I prefer that my players roleplay the interaction with the npcs. If they interact in the right manner, they can get a lot of allies, including (but not limited to) some king or lord that could bring them an army to help them. They could never acquire tat with just Leadership. So, roleplay it, you gete Leadership feat free :)
Just my 2 cents: I just ban Leadership. That's more because I don't want my players gain allies just with a feat. They have to interact. Leadership have a variable score, but unless you do some really bad thing, you can rather easy take the max. So I prefer that my players roleplay the interaction with the npcs. If they interact in the right manner, they can get a lot of allies, including (but not limited to) some king or lord that could bring them an army to help them. They could never acquire tat with just Leadership. So, roleplay it, you gete Leadership feat free :)
I don't do that because i like characters with minions. I've been toying with hte idea of a summoner with leadership, eldritch bloodline and boon companion to get an animal companion and a cohort in addition to the eidolon.
I just think they should have some dedication of their character resources to it, if they want it to be a powerful minion. And a single characters entire menagerie of minions together should never outshine a completely minion-less player character.|
|
Just my 2 cents: I just ban Leadership. That's more because I don't want my players gain allies just with a feat. They have to interact. Leadership have a variable score, but unless you do some really bad thing, you can rather easy take the max. So I prefer that my players roleplay the interaction with the npcs. If they interact in the right manner, they can get a lot of allies, including (but not limited to) some king or lord that could bring them an army to help them. They could never acquire tat with just Leadership. So, roleplay it, you gete Leadership feat free :)
I actually think this is the best way, but it puts alot of work on the DM, so most are adverse to it. Also Leadership gives a proper system, which know alot of players prefer over "DMs Whim".
This is definitely the way to go if you're group is cool though.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just my 2 cents: I just ban Leadership. That's more because I don't want my players gain allies just with a feat. They have to interact. Leadership have a variable score, but unless you do some really bad thing, you can rather easy take the max. So I prefer that my players roleplay the interaction with the npcs. If they interact in the right manner, they can get a lot of allies, including (but not limited to) some king or lord that could bring them an army to help them. They could never acquire tat with just Leadership. So, roleplay it, you gete Leadership feat free :)
I actually do both - I make the PCs roleplay the building of relationships and actually find their cohorts, and I retain the control over the cohort's stats, though I do build the cohort to the player's desires. I expect my players to run their own cohort but I keep full veto rights.
And I still require them to take the feat - this represents the "opportunity cost" of gaining such a useful cohort. The time and effort the character spent building this relationship was time and effort that could have been spent on other opportunities, like learning a different combat feat. And since the cohort is so useful, well worth a feat, it's easily justified.
|
|
Just my 2 cents: I just ban Leadership. That's more because I don't want my players gain allies just with a feat.Players who aren't strong can have PCs who can lift a ton. Players who aren't smart can have PCs who make Tyson look like a mental midget. But, whoa to the player who is socially awkward if he wishes to have a PC who is suave.
That's not the issue, we're saying that a feat for another full character is overpowered and irresponsible, they have to do more than just a feat for that kind of power. Please read the entire comment before you post.
I read the entire comment before I posted. Incidentally, its not a feat for another full character. Putting that aside, though, you are asking a player who may be socially awkward to run a PC who persuades an NPC to become a cohort. Not just in theory, but -in practice- how do you ensure that the player's charisma has no affect on the PC's charisma?That's not the issue, we're saying that a feat for another full character is overpowered and irresponsible, they have to do more than just a feat for that kind of power. Please read the entire comment before you post.Just my 2 cents: I just ban Leadership. That's more because I don't want my players gain allies just with a feat.Players who aren't strong can have PCs who can lift a ton. Players who aren't smart can have PCs who make Tyson look like a mental midget. But, whoa to the player who is socially awkward if he wishes to have a PC who is suave.
I think a good GM doesn't care about such things.
Me, I wouldn't ask a player to persuade a NPC, or to persuade me. I'd ask a player to roleplay his relationship with that NPC. I'm not talking about a 1-minute encounter followed by "Hey, why don't you join us, you could be Robin to my Batman and I'll give you some of my phat lewtz. You in?"
I'm actually talking about meeting someone, say, in town (or wherever), and then interacting with them. Then meeting them again later, and again. Spending time with them. Helping them. Earning their trust through your deeds and your behavior. You know, roleplaying stuff. After a while, that NPC might just come to the realization that he'd like to adventure with such an wonderful PC to share in his travels, adventures, and companionship.
If a player wants a faster approach, he can use skills like Diplomacy, or even Bluff (though that almost always backfires in long-term relationships) to hasten the process, gaining trust and companionship much faster.
Through none of that do I expect the player to actually dazzle me with his real-life social skills. I just expect him to invest some roleplaying time and effort, just like I expect that from all my players in every other roleplaying scenario throughout all of our gaming sessions. Then I let my estimation of the NPC's personality and goals, compared to my knowledge of the PC's (not player's) personality and charisma, modified by the amount of effort (not skill, just effort) the player put into developing this relationship.
In short, no "player charisma" required.
Three things to remember about Leadership:
- A cohort can never be more than 2 levels lower than the PC with the feat, regardless of Leadership score
Just the opposite. "Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two OR MORE levels lower than yourself." CRB, pg 129.
Therefore, a cohort can never be closer than 2 levels lower.
I think what DQ meant to says was "A cohort can never be higher than 2 levels below the PC..."
In other words, I think you're both saying the same thing, it's just that one word choice is less confusing...
I concur with the general consensus. Let a min-maxer player custom-build his own cohort to meet his exact specifications, much like Dr. Frankenstein building a monster BUT without any of the flaws or failures of that ill-fated experiment, and Leadership is broken. But, let the GM build a balanced and story-appropriate NPC follower according to the player's wishes, and the GM retains, at minimum, veto power over the player's control of said NPC follower, and the Leadership feat is interesting but not necessarily overpowered - just keep the Ultimate Campaign guidelines in mind too, and all will be well.
Yes, thank you. It's what I meant, I just used the wrong word.
1) The player tells me what they want out of their cohort (and followers, as needed).2) I as GM design the cohort, pulling from my campaign notes to find an appropriate NPC or NPC concept to fit the bill.
3) I okay the cohort design with the player, making sure the design I have come up with reflects what the player wants, and make changes based on the player's suggestion. My designing it makes sure it fits with the world, is built according to a narrative within the campaign and isn't just seen as a game mechanic (and avoids optimization cheese if necessary, but I certainly will build the character to be effective), but I make sure the player is happy with the result before it gets implemented.
Basically creating the cohort is a player-GM collaboration. This tends to avoid any potential "breakage."
I usually roleplay the cohort's personality but the player runs them in combat (so I can focus on controlling the bad guys).
I've not experienced Leadership as broken per se, but it can be a challenge to keep track of everyone. Again, collaboration between player and GM is key.
If the player can't trust the GM and the GM can't trust the player to come up with a fair design, that's not the fault of the feat, that's the fault of the GM and player failing to play on good terms with each other and treat each other with respect.
That's about the experience I've had as well. I haven't experience leadership being broken and I've had multiple PCs with cohorts in the same game and with one being used primarily to manufacture magic items. Didn't cause significant problems as I saw it, but then I'm fine with running larger parties and throwing larger groups of mixed monsters at the PCs too.
I actually think this is the best way, but it puts alot of work on the DM, so most are adverse to it. Also Leadership gives a proper system, which know alot of players prefer over "DMs Whim".
This is definitely the way to go if you're group is cool though.
Well, I always advice my groups: no Leadership in my game. I just can't stand it. Nbody ever cried about that, so I'm suppose theyu're cool and I done my DM work, one way or another. I don't care the work, I work to make my players have fun, and that's funny for me either :)
I actually do both - I make the PCs roleplay the building of relationships and actually find their cohorts, and I retain the control over the cohort's stats, though I do build the cohort to the player's desires. I expect my players to run their own cohort but I keep full veto rights.And I still require them to take the feat - this represents the "opportunity cost" of gaining such a useful cohort. The time and effort the character spent building this relationship was time and effort that could have been spent on other opportunities, like learning a different combat feat. And since the cohort is so useful, well worth a feat, it's easily justified.
Hmmm. I see your point, though I still don't see why allow it. I think players are more satisfied with just relationship builded with the pc's forces. But if I ever allow Leadership, I'll for sure follow this line.
Players who aren't strong can have PCs who can lift a ton. Players who aren't smart can have PCs who make Tyson look like a mental midget. But, whoa to the player who is socially awkward if he wishes to have a PC who is suave.I read the entire comment before I posted. Incidentally, its not a feat for another full character.
Incidentally, it's feat for a 2 lev lower character. Not full? Who cares? If you don't control it, you can end up with 2 character, one level X and the other X-2. Maybe you think it's a big difference. I don't think that. Aside that:
Putting that aside, though, you are asking a player who may be socially awkward to run a PC who persuades an NPC to become a cohort. Not just in theory, but -in practice- how do you ensure that the player's charisma has no affect on the PC's charisma?
Hmmm. Interesting question. Seems you're never heard of Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, and similar. Oh, almost forget, seems you0re never heard of DMs that try to help the roleplay so that if you are socially awkard and want to play a commander the DM try to encorage you to role your character, instead of adverse it. Well, I'm sorry for you. None of my players ever ranted about Leadership ban, so I think I have a point in that.
I read the entire comment before I posted. Incidentally, its not a feat for another full character. Putting that aside, though, you are asking a player who may be socially awkward to run a PC who persuades an NPC to become a cohort. Not just in theory, but -in practice- how do you ensure that the player's charisma has no affect on the PC's charisma?That's not the issue, we're saying that a feat for another full character is overpowered and irresponsible, they have to do more than just a feat for that kind of power. Please read the entire comment before you post.Just my 2 cents: I just ban Leadership. That's more because I don't want my players gain allies just with a feat.Players who aren't strong can have PCs who can lift a ton. Players who aren't smart can have PCs who make Tyson look like a mental midget. But, whoa to the player who is socially awkward if he wishes to have a PC who is suave.I think a good GM doesn't care about such things.
Me, I wouldn't ask a player to persuade a NPC, or to persuade me. I'd ask a player to roleplay his relationship with that NPC. I'm not talking about a 1-minute encounter followed by "Hey, why don't you join us, you could be Robin to my Batman and I'll give you some of my phat lewtz. You in?"
I'm actually talking about meeting someone, say, in town (or wherever), and then interacting with them. Then meeting them again later, and again. Spending time with them. Helping them. Earning their trust through your deeds and your behavior. You know, roleplaying stuff. After a while, that NPC might just come to the realization that he'd like to adventure with such an wonderful PC to share in his travels, adventures, and companionship.
If a player wants a faster approach, he can use skills like Diplomacy, or even Bluff (though that almost always backfires in long-term relationships) to hasten the process, gaining trust and...
The problem i have with that, is if a player build a character with the intent of the character having a sidekick at some point, for whatever fluff reason, I think they should be able to integrate that sidekick into their character build, just the same way a druid or ranger can have an animal companion as part of their character build.
I do agree that one feat is way too little investment for a character that is your level-2, I also think roleplaying should be involved in aquiring this cohort, and I don't contest that GM influence over the way this character is built is necessary, to prevent exploits like crafting Cohorts, who basically give you all the benefits of all crafting feats at the expense of only leadership. But ultimately i think the player shold have some form of guarantee that the sidekick will be there and it will be "their" sidekick, and the sidekick is the way the player envisioned it, not just an NPC that follows the party around.
As i said, i would separate Leadership into a line of feats to get to the power it has right now with only one feat.
But we should also remember that a, let's say level 9 PC with leadership and a cohort does not have the same powerlevel as a level 9 PC and a level 7 PC. Not even the same as a Level 9 PC and a Level 7 NPC.
Because unlike 2 separate Characters, the PC with Leadership not only has the marginal tax of one less feat, but also has to share their Level 9 appropriate wealth with their cohort.
The 2 Separate characters would have 46,000 and 23,500 gp respectively if they were both PCs, or 46,000 and 6,000 gp if the level 7 character were an NPC.
The PC with his cohort has 46,000 gp to share among them.
Wealth is an innate part of the power level balance of characters with class levels, and without taking that into account Level doesn't equal Level.
That level 7 character is basically CR 4.
Hmmm. Interesting question. Seems you're never heard of Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, and similar. Oh, almost forget, seems you0re never heard of DMs that try to help the roleplay so that if you are socially awkard and want to play a commander the DM try to encorage you to role your character, instead of adverse it. Well, I'm sorry for you. None of my players ever ranted about Leadership ban, so I think I have a point in that.That's a dick response.
What I've seen at the various tables I've gamed at around the table is that the kind of table you're describing is rare.
As far as not allowing Leadership, I support your decision for YOUR table. You can't handle Leadership as a GM.
My answer is the same as your question. You're free to think what you want. I'm not able to handle leadership? Maybe. Our maybe I just don't like that feat. I have no problem at handle one more or one less pc, this is never be a concern for me. I have tons of ways to challenge my players, even if they all take leadership. If you can't understand that that's a feat I don't like is not my problem. If you can't argue anything aside personal attack to me as DM in defense of leadership feat, that's not my concern. I already explained why I don't allow that, and for my table nobody had ever raised questions about it. So, what's your point? I'm a bad DM? Well, if you want, yes, I'm a bad DM. I hope you're now satisfied. Now, I like to back in topic on evaluating other ways to handle leadership, aside your personal rancor.
|
|
Ultimate Campaign has fleshed out the "downtime" system to provide many of the benefits I altered Leadership to have, so I no longer use Leadership.Do high charisma characters get an advantage?
My players were primarily concerned with crafting and maintaining a base of operations, so "downtime" rules have assisted heavily (e.g. crafting on the adventuring trail). Charisma still plays a heavy role in the success of certain skill checks for gathering resources for "downtime" activities, but because those checks can rely on other skills, it's not the definitive advantage.
Thread Temporary Resurrection: Is this the most recent thread for ways to fix Leadership? Seems unlikely, but this is what the Search function pulled up.
A problem I see is that keeping the cohort leveled up requires you to include him in the party. This affects action economy, and damage/spell output. If they are not included in the encounters, they quickly drop to PC-3 levels, PC-4 levels, and so on.
Cohorts usually have way more options than a pet, so it makes using one take more time. Advancing one also takes a lot of time. If they instead scaled as PC-2 levels, then you could leave them back home to mind the castle, run the spy ring, and generate some crafting wealth.
I think the best fix would be to be able to send the cohort out to do missions, that gained XP for it and plot advancement for the party. This would reduce the need for their presence with the party all the time.
As to lesser followers, they can have an impact on the environment. If your score is high enough, you can even get 5th and 6th level characters, who can do a lot as well. Maybe not up to PC levels, but for side quests, and sandbox stuff, it can be quite effective. In the Skull & Shackles AP, I have a 6th level follower as a ship captain in my fleet.
/cevah
I have been toying with the idea of a Cohort (eventually also Followers) that actually DON'T normally adventure with the party, but run the business end of things, not for wealth generation, but to start a historical and educational organization back home (which in the United States would be called non-profit). (This is part of thoughts of a Mummy's Mask character concept that DOESN'T go the Indiana Jones route, and instead tries to prevent the for-profit pillaging of Osirion's antiquities in favor of starting an Andoren Geographic Society. Unfortunately, I came up with this idea just a bit over a year before the actual National Georgraphic magazine and TV channel got taken over by you-know-who.)
And then the cohort that just takes all the item crafting feats blows the "wealth by level" argument out of the water.
Full disclosure: I'm in the 'ban' camp as well if I have a full table.
|
@Renen
Remove the Leadership feat and allow PCs to influence NPCs by requesting help, assistance or something else. The feat itself is silly and totally unrealistic. Why wouldn't another player be able to have his own temporary cohort if he's got decent Diplomacy skill. You can likewise balance NPCs easily this way. A cohort of peasants is gonna have lv 1 commoners. A group of guards is gonna have lv2 or lv3 warriors. Pick them from NPC Codex and you are good to go.
Adam