| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Preamble
First, I apologize if this post is a nuisance to the authors and organizers that put together a game that entertains so many, including myself. I'm grateful for their work, and it's certainly not my intent to be a pain in the neck. I've searched the boards and I didn't see any satisfying and complete explanation. I tried to find a way to post the following to Mr. Frost privately, but couldn't find a way. I know there's a little envelope thingie next to his profile, but it wouldn't work for me. I imagine that much of this has been rehashed among playtesters, so I apologize again if someone has to repeat themselves in this thread.
The Point
My opinion, to be frank about it is that denying use of the Leadership feat is unfair and unreasonable. It is possible that the feat should be nerfed a little so that cohorts do not outshine other party members, but as things stand, characters with high Charisma and several class features (clerics who choose the nobility domain, for example), lose out on a normal development that most such characters would normally have within the RPG environment. The feat simply integrates and formalizes such a development in terms of game mechanics, which makes things easier on a DM. Further, the denial seems out-of-place when the rules expressly allow characters to bring along a helper of sorts, with the limitation that only one such permanent "helper" assist in combat. Working within this limitation takes care of any legitimate concern that the Leadership feat might be problematic. Therefore, I don't understand why it has been denied use in PFS games. I'll try to list the possible reasons why someone might have resorted to banning the feat, and why I think each reason falls short of being valid.
Argument against Leadership #1: Leadership allows a player to control two units in the game
This is true, but it's not a reason to ban the feat. Players often control two units in the game. Rangers and druids have their animals, summoners have eidolons, and spellcasters have familiars. Further, the game lists guard dogs and mercenaries (albeit under the sanitized term "expert hirelings" - for which there do not seem to be any stats) as legitimate purchases. Therefore, this argument does not seem to carry weight in this particular game design.
Argument against Leadership #2: Cohorts are too flexible/powerful/shiny to allow a character to play them.
This is arguable, but let's assume it's true. Wouldn't a better fix have been to nerf the feat then? Limit the level of the cohort to the character's level -3 or -4. If cohorts are too flexible, deny them the ability to multiclass. If they are too shiny, make them dull. If the feat was banned under this argument, the ban is an overreaction, and out-of-proportion.
Argument against Leadership #3: The additional followers generated by high level characters are problematic.
This I just don't buy. Many, many high level characters (both player and non-player) of every kind have all sorts of staff helping them out. Whether they be bought, magicked or otherwise. Whether it be guarding, attacking, exploring, messaging, or holding your reading book, high level characters command appropriate resources, and removing this feat from play does nothing to restrain that. Therefore, targeting this feat because resources are overwhelming seems just plain wrong.
Argument against Leadership #4: The feat creates too much additional work.
This is also false, at least to the extent that it might be considered "too much." The feat creates additional work for the player that chooses it, but the player that chooses it obviously wants the additional work. As to the additional work required of DMs, let's say, for sake of argument, that it's the equivalent of another player in the game. I actually don't think it is, since players often have an extra hoop to jump through when figuring out how to cooperate with each other, while the player with a cohort will usually be already well-integrated. But assuming that it's the equivalent of another player, I don't see how this creates too much work for the DM.
In Conclusion...
If it's not too much of a pain, I'd love to read why the feat has been banned from PFS games. It's not a way to circumvent the money/equipment system, and I can't think of a way in which it causes problems. Again, please forgive me if this comes across as obnoxious or trolling. I'm a big fan of the game, and of the serious work you've put into it.