|
this is intended to break the discussion of Leadership and it's benefits/drawbacks from the other thread, which was primarily concerned with mercenaries and hirelings, and not the feat itself.
to recap: in my current game, we were short an archetype character. in our case, a rogue/scout.
so, my character, a knight/cleric who was already the titular commanding officer and highest ranking member of the party, petitioned his superiors for some special assistance (and took the leadership feat)
he got Smith, a halfling rogue/fighter/whisperknife.
now, this is a bit of a sticky situation, as the DM is playing Smith as his own character. and that's it's own ball of wax right there.
typically, when i DM, if i allow Leadership (usually, only if the PC in question is gearing up for it from the beginning, or it happens to fall quite readily into the story) or Thrallherds, i allow the player to create and control the cohorts/thralls.
if you can't handle that much character design and combat management, don't do it. and if you slow up combat significantly, i'll take control away until you are capable of running all your characters smoothly.
that being said, this is NOT the current situation. the DM, i think, wants to play a character, as well as DM. we, as a group, won't allow that (as i am waiting on this game to wrap up so as to start the STAP), since DMPC's hardly ever work.
and we have 6 players already.
hirelings and mercenaries are ok, i guess, but how do you really justify them when the PC's can't take them into really dangerous situations? a War2, or even Ftr2 (really the most typically available mercenary in Eberron, unless you're willing to pay for a Warforged or House Deneith work) is not going to be worth a single round of combat at the CR 9-11 lvl we've been dealing with.
so, leadership implies 2 things.
1: the DM will adjudicate it as to maximize fun for the PC with leadership, as well as the rest of the party.
2: the Leader PC will not take over the roles of any of the party when taking leadership.
things that REALLY make the feat shine, both in RP and Mechanics standpoints:
1: cohort clerics. sure, they may be a bit behind the rest of the party, but healing's healing, and if they're out of direct line of fire, their relative fragility shouldn't come up. and noone has to play the band-aid-box.
2: bards. really, these guys are designed to work outside direct combat, and that means the bard's player does a couple of things EACH BATTLE. -bardic music, cast haste, buff the party. now he's got something to occupy his time (and interest) while the party is hacking and slashing to his merry tune.
3: filling in party roles. like the band-aid-box, every party should have a trap-finder, a melee fighter, and some kind of magical support. if the party can't (or won't) come up with those needed roles, why not let someone take on another hat? the cohort is NOT going to be better than a PC healer, rogue, or fighter, but something's better than nothing.
and in conclusion: 2 feats is a LOT. that's 2 Heavy Armor Optimizations for my Knight. (-3 ACP on full plate +2, +12 AC? sure!)
OR:
healing augmentation and domain focus
spell focus and greater spell focus
craft wondrous item, forge ring
etc.
2 feats is a LOT to spend on getting a decent cohort, and this one's not even under my direct control.
questions? comments? direct challenges to the above? here's the place to throw the Leadership gauntlet down! do you as DM's allow it? if not, do you allow Mindbenders, Thrallherds, or Affiliations which would allow for PC's to acquire followers?
if so, why? and what kind of Leadership stories do you have to share?
-the hamster
out of curiosity, where are you getting the two feats issue? leadership, iirc, is only one feat...
tog
out of curiosity, where are you getting the two feats issue? leadership, iirc, is only one feat...
tog
I believe the "improved cohort" feat was the second feat being refered to in the above.
I don't care how useful it is to have followers. Nor do I make any argument against them. I just see no need for the feat. Either of them.
You can have followers, aids, and additional party members if you can create an environment where they would want to help you or join you. However in my games these people would function the exact same as any other npc or pc, which is to say they would take xp if they aided in a challenge and are not subject to any of the guidelines of the leadership feat.
Re: Affiliations- Personally, I hated the section in the PHBII that dealt with guild leaders' executive powers. All I could think is that it felt way too much like a strategy game, where you have a game-time "cool down" on an ability, then go to your little toolbar panel, click it, the graphic of the plague or assassin or whatever plays, and you get the result (success/failure), which has specific, almost abstract ramifications in the mechanics, and then you just wait for the cool down again....
No! You want to call down a freaking plague from your god? That is something that you go on a quest to accomplish, not something that you inherit when you take over a large enough number of church parishes!
I liked some parts of it, but on the whole, it was far to formulaic and removed from what D&D "is" for my tastes.
I have used the Leadership feat both as a player and as a DM. I see no problem with its use. The problem with the feat is that it takes time, sometimes to much time for an adventurer, to recruit the followers. Also, the followers are not bound to the character, they will leave if they feel they are mistreated or if they want to be paid and have not been. the feat states that it is the PC's responsibility to keep the followers supplied, fed, clothed, etc. . As far as the cohort, that is one of the perks of the leadership feat, have a loyal companion, possibly even a fanatical one.
As far as to who should make and control the followers and cohort, I believe that the character can express his wish for a certain type of character to the DM. On the other hand, I believe it should be the DM who makes the character, stats and all. Once the intro to the PC with leadership, it is no longer the DM's place to play the character. Control of the cohort/follower is turned over to the player.Followers never gain levels, but the cohort does, so the PC gets to decide how the cohort levels up. All in all the PC should at least have a say in what goes on with HIS followers. After all, he IS their leader.
I see no problem with the DM running a character with the party. It is one of the ways I test character concepts or make sure smaller parties have the necessary support character.
Leadership is definately a feat that requires DM approval, as my group has six people as well and I would be loathe to have to play yet another NPC on top of the work that I already have to do, and the rest of the party might not look kindly on another person gobbling up treasure and XP. Basically, there is some discussion that needs to go along with taking this feat.
Thankfully, my current game has allowed me to actually explain what I did with the feat.
First of all, I do not think that you need the feat to gain the attention of others and surround yourself with people (you cant have friends without a feat?). I think its more of an improved method of doing so (you gain them whether or not you have that kind of environment or status).
As for the cohort, I allow the player taking the feat a good deal of control (just as I allow a player with a Item Creation feat the ability to make whatever they want, time and money allowing). However, I dont give them complete, full control. The swordsage that took the feat said he would like another martial adept as a cohort, someone who has heard of his exploits and is coming to him to learn more. He also wants to found a martial adept school of sorts.
Basically, since in my Eberron game the goblin empire originally created the martial disciplines (or at the very least, started to), his cohort will be a hobgoblin swordsage. As for his school, well thats where his followers come into play. They will build and manage the place while he is away (perhaps his cohort will serve as a figurehead if the PC does not want him following him around).
He gets a home, and a bunch of people that will do as he says, and perhaps eventually a small kingdom (or more) in exchange for a feat. The only restrictions are that I will require him to make an appearance there and actually manage the place (it also provides ideas for more adventures).
That being said, since the player is taking the feat, they should have a good deal of control over where it goes despite the fact that it demands DM approval. At the very least how your DM wants to manage it should have been made clear beforehand (if he was gonna use it as a means to play one of his own PCs, you could have argued with him, or at worst just not taken it).
I am fairly flexible and what my player wanted to do with it was plausible, reasonable, and in the end completely workable.
Basically, since in my Eberron game the goblin empire originally created the martial disciplines (or at the very least, started to), his cohort will be a hobgoblin swordsage. As for his school, well thats where his followers come into play. They will build and manage the place while he is away (perhaps his cohort will serve as a figurehead if the PC does not want him following him around).
He gets a home, and a bunch of people that will do as he says, and perhaps eventually a small kingdom (or more) in exchange for a feat. The only restrictions are that I will require him to make an appearance there and actually manage the place (it also provides ideas for more adventures).
Very interesting read. Much food for thought there.
From my thread on Hirelings/Mercenaries- Sorry for the doublesized post.
I don't like it from a DM vs Player perspective, but if a player had it, I'd let them control the cohort and followers- as my friend would do it- within a restricted area, basically their immediate sphere of influence.
I AM using the Leadership feat as a DM though. I'm using it for my Nobleman Marshal NPC, who has...a rather high Leadership score at Level 10, this is such a potentially bulky proposistion ON TOP OF THE NPC's PERSONALITY that I've outsourced to a guest player, who won't be available until November though, to play the character once things get hectic and the party might need him or their interests intersect or clash...and they might clash. I plan on letting HIM control the Cohort, who would be of 8th level, and predetermined to be a cleric, and the followers (Now predetermined as well). I figure as a Marshal, he should have a small army at his disposal, and he'll need it, use it and possibly abuse it. As the character is Neutral, we'll see if the players come into conflict or congruence with the Marshal, who is less a servant of the King than a master of his own realm and slave to his obsessions.
Any actual Player Character taking the feat won't get such generous treatment from me, first they have to Roleplay attracting the follower- again as Saern points out, almost negates the usefulness in having the feat though the feat sets upper and lower limits and puts in the leadership score to keep things somewhat balanced...
No, I don't want, or would allow, a small army of PCs and NPCs to roam the countryside, well not anymore than I would now...
I have 8 PCs and right now, 4 NPCs running around with the different groups- the pcs haven't gotten together...basically, without the Leadership feat- my PCs already will be a Small Army...though there's not many frontline fighters in the group, I have a fighter, a barbarian/druid, a monk (Who doesn't yet realize his place in a party, though he's been traveling with npcs so far, but he is a ghost...), a ranger, and two clerics. well one is a fighter/cleric. on top of that I have a Sorcerer and the NPCs are Monk/protector of the Sorceress, Cleric (he won't be around long), Wizard (on her own mission, but being escorted by a PC Cleric) and Ranger/Cleric (he's getting killed, but will come back as a ghost if the PCs don't save him, or his body, actually)Anyway, if ANY of them took Leadership, it would be ridiculous. I just wouldn't allow it as it wouldn't be practical for any of them...well probably...
I don't HATE Leadership, I like the potential it has, at least for a small party and NPCs, but I see how it could easily get out of hand, at that point you'd have to wrest control of the followers and probably cohort(s) out of the PCs hands if it is practical and take it from there...for instance, what if the players do something that is contrary to the alignment of their followers/cohort (being that an NPC's alignment might be stricter than the PCs)? What if the PCs want the character to do something suicidal? But then again, what if they just want them to help handle mundane things or just act as an entourage- not even using all of the followers they could have...which is what my NPC Marshal will be doing pretty much.
I've already created the NPC Cleric for the Marshal, and I like him. Makes me want to play him- which I will next session.
I made him a cleric of Tephaneron (Strength, War), he has Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple- I totally traded in turning feats to get that, but the guy still has Vampire Hunter and Sacred Vitality from Libris Mortis to help him deal with undead.I thought the improved unarmed stuff would make him an excellent bodyguard for the Marshal, him being a cleric- as his predecessors were for the two previous Lords of the manor- he can heal the Marshal and the marshal's followers.
Btw, the npc Marshal has a leadership score of insane-
Here's the score broken down, as well as an excerpt from the chart which I modified and put down the followers.
Leadership Score= 10th level + 4 (cha) +2 (renown from family- would include in this case Fairness and Generousity of his predecessor) –1 (Cohort of a different alignment= chaotic good)= 15 for cohort, 10th level + 4 (cha) +2 (renown from family- would include in this case Fairness and Generousity of his predecessor) +2 (base of operations)=18 for followers
score : 15/18 could lead a 10th (8th level Thurkasian Cleric of Tephaneron- Robustus Animus) 1st 35 (10 Human rangers, 10 fighters, 5 clerics, 5 –2 halfling- warriors 5 Tereppekean wizards), 2nd 3 (2 Human Rangers one with 2 wpn one with Archery, 1 Tereppekean wizard) 3rd 1 (Human, Thurkasian cleric of Tephaneron- Confirmatio, as much a servant of Robustus Animus) 4th 1 (fighter +1 to strength- Pubeo Vires)
And I could let him have a leadership score of 19 (for followers. Fairness and Generosity), but lets assume he has one of 18.
In this case, as the character is a nobleman and of 10th level, all the followers are predetermined, naturally as a DM I'd like that, since I'm only utilizing a guest player to do the dirty work of controlling this small army.
I think the major problems, as have been stated in the previous thread as much as this one, are Role Playing issues and Logistical problems.
For one, DM PCs are messy, but I'm doing one.
Why not just attract the follower/cohort (and I'm thinking less of a cohort just coming along) via Reputation of the party?
Who controls the small army? How do you control a small army in combat?
Well, since my leadership guy is an NPC, most of that is taken care of, but if he were an actual PC, it'd be different.
I like the charts given in the word doc provided by Wizards of the Coast (free to download), they're more expansive and neater than the ones in the Player's Handbook, by a little bit.
At least, these modifiers apply: If the character is responsible for the death of a cohort -2 (and this stacks if he loses more than one), if the leader has a different alignment than the cohort -1, if he moves around a lot or caused the death of a follower -1 to his score for attracting followers. If I was about to give the Fairness and Generosity to my npc, I can just balance it by assuming the death of a follower. Cohorts, btw, don't seem to care about the death of followers, and the other way around.
I think the great renown modifier should stack if the PCs do something incredible, or other modifiers should come into play such as "do the player(s) have songs written about them?"
since I would figure on bards serving to increase an adventurer's renown.
I don't think players should have more control over the cohort and followers than the DM, actually.
By this I mean, the player should be able to control the cohort pretty solidly- within a sphere of influence (try 60-120 ft), orders would be followed by followers and the cohort, but when left to their own devices the followers would probably difer to the cohort or go their own merry way, following whatever orders given and the DM could just as easily have those orders be confused or nullified by an attack on the compound and having all the followers but one slaughtered while the PC and Cohort perhaps were away...Mwhahaha...
In addition to the PC controlling the Cohort, the DM can make nudges- suggestions to the player or commands from on high that the cohort follows or impulses the dm THINKS the Cohort or even more so, followers should follow. Yes I think the player should control followers within a sphere of influence- perhaps a larger one, but outside of it, since they don't garner XP. which is kinda ridiculous, I think they should level up as their master levels up, presuming a high enough leadership score, but that's the nature of the beast- 30-40 first level followers leveling up at once?! not gonna happen. But I do think instead of attracting higher level followers from say 3rd-5th, the single followers should level up, for instance I have a 4th level cleric follower, instead of attracting a 5th level cleric follower when the Marshal has a leadership score of 19, have that cleric level up and a new lower level followers come along- at Lscore 19 they'd gain a 2nd level and 2 3rd level followers assuming the former 3rd level moves to 4th and so on. One problem with this, there is no 7th level on the chart, though there is suggestion from the chart progression that if the character has a leadership score of 22 or higher, then there should be a 7th level follower...
My opinion is...Yeah you got hosed if you had to spend 2 feats to get a DM PC. Talk to the DM and see if you can get one or both back. I don't think the trapfinder is the best role for a DM PC but if that is his opening to play one and he just wants to be involved then, ok, the DM should enjoy the game along with the players. However, using your feats to do it is not the most equitable way to go about it.