Has anyone else had trouble maintaining a challenging game when the Leadership feat is used extensively?
In my campaign, I have a party of six PCs and three of them have taken the Leadership feat. That means the party consists of six level 10 and three level 8 adventurers. Often, these odds are so overwhelming that the enemies don't even get a chance to have an initiative before they are dead.
I've been trying to increase the difficulty by giving monsters more hit dice (but not increasing the XP gained from them) and also by encouraging PCs to leave their cohorts behind in Cauldron as assistants who work behind the scenes.
Another problem with leadership in the SCAP is that the campaign is known to be low on treasure. How much worse will it be, then, when players have to use part of their share to equip their cohorts? Everyone's gear is sub-par for their level.
Having a party of usually 8-9 combatants also makes combats long and drawn out. In a game where we only play five-six hours a week, going through a long initiative order only to find the players have easily won is pretty annoying to all involved.
I would warn any DMs who are just starting this campaign to attempt to discourage leadership unless the party is small and needs to grow. Having followers is neat from a player's perspective, but it really complicates things. The SCAP hardcover says it is meant for six players, but I truly believe it is better suited for four. Either that, or my players have above average playing skill.
Also, does anyone have neat ideas for how players can use their followers? My wizard player used her leadership feat to become the leader of the Magical Threats Agency. My cleric turned the Kopru Ruins into an underground cult dedicated to fighting demons. And the female noble bard is using her many 'suitors' as spies and informants.
The leadership feat is just too powerful in my opinion. It's given me a lot of trouble as a DM. I'd like to hear what the rest of you think.
Unfortunately I don't have experience with any of my players using the Leadership feat, so I am not sure how much I can add here. I will, however, be watching this thread closely as it was something I was going to recommend that they do us. Perhaps that isn't the best idea when they are already having difficulty deciding what to do on their turn.
Sean Mahoney
|
This is a difficult situation but I would not go as far as saying that Leadership is bad for the SCAP. I've run the game twice and both times there have been PCs with Leadership. However, as players they were mature enough to realize that their cohorts couldn't all be in the party. Your players are going to have to learn that they hard way it seems.
You have already struck upon one way to discourage the small army syndrome that Leadership spawns...namely the division of loot. The cohorts should be receiving a portion of the loot (I believe it says this in the DMG). The PC with the feat is not expected to pay for them. If they are with the party it is expected they get the loot from those adventures. Eventually your PCs will be far below the wealth level they want and they will stop using their cohorts this way.
I'm really wondering what kind of race/class combos you are allowing your PCs to use for their cohorts, and are you allowing them to roll them like PCs? I usually give cohorts NPC stats or lower point-buy than PCs because they aren't PCs, they are just helpers.
I would warn any DMs who are just starting this campaign to attempt to discourage leadership unless the party is small and needs to grow.
Agreed. With my group of 5 PCs, three of them have cohorts and they easily tore through Lords of Oblivion. My group killed Vhalantru in the first round. Somewhere along the way, I should have hampered them in some fashion to make the last fight of that chapter a million times more epic.
In other campaigns, we ran into the same issue. What eventually evolved was the philosophy that the PCs are the heroes and anyone else is just support. So, any NPC (either cohort or just along with the party) usually was developed so that they are focused on having one role in the party.
For example, the cleric cohort primarily heals and keeps utility spells ready. Kaurophon had a set of actions that he did in any combat encounter (haste, buffs, etc.). A fighter cohort is there to protect their leader by providing cover and defense to their leader.
This had two effects. Mainly, it prevented the player from wasting time on their "other" character by thinking of all the possibilities and focusing on only a few core actions. Secondly, it firmly puts the cohort in the background; a useful ally with a cut of the treasure but not a hero on the level of the PCs.
This works well for us, but it does assume that your players can also see the negative impact of having all those cohorts around...
One of my characters took the leadership feat, but I've limited cohorts to NPCs who come into contact with him.
So his first choice of cohorts was Fario, Fellian, or Shensen. They were 10th (or actually 8th for Shensen because 1/2 drow adds levels), but their progression is not what the player would choose.
I thought he would go for Shensen, as her special powers and feats section of her character sheet is the longest I've ever seen for a character. No way, says my player. The party was light on healing at the time, and his bard would like his own personal medic, so he's choosing Fellian.
Once he saw the character sheet he found out that his bard has access to higher level healing than Fellian.
He'll get another chance to higher cohorts later, but basically I don't let the player roll up whatever he wants. When he does something that is heroic and leader-ey, I allow any NPC's who are around at the time to offer to join him as a cohort.
Since he took Leadership, no one else has.
We had Shensen and often another NPC (Alec, Grehlia, a celestial lion bard from Occipitus--it was a strange list) all the way through, and frankly I think it tipped the difficulty from "impossible" to merely "much too hard" for this particular party. Without the extra people the PCs (pretty much Core characters and not well optimized) would have had no chance. Treasure was a bad problem though. With six PCs we already had treasure problems and splitting 8 ways was vicious. This was hard on player morale--you could never spend money on anything roleplaying related, it all had to be spent optimally, and even then there was never enough of anything to make the level expectations.
If the players constantly angle for cohorts but hate the slow combats, it may be that you and they should explore other ways to make the scenarios easier that wouldn't be so slow. Would the game be more fun with 4 characters, no cohorts, but +1 or +2 levels?
I agree that adding more bodies makes high-level combat even draggier than it already is. But if the players are all taking Leadership there's going to be a reason why. I know the reason in our game: the scenarios were too hard for us. Your game might have a different reason. I'd suggest asking the players what it is.
Mary
The leadership feat really can get out of hand unless there are some ex-oficio limits put on it. My group is made of four PCs and our half orc fighter took the leadership feat and managed to convince a number of the mercenaries that he was the bees-knees due to some events that transpired. Things are still going well for us and we're about to chapter 8.
In previous campaigns we managed to hone our rules on leadership because we had enough situations like the OP's where we had a small army controlled by four characters. We still wanted the feat to be fun, but we didn't want to leave it open for intentional or ignorant abuse. Here are our table rules on leadership.
1. You can only attract followers that you have been in contact with for a significant time (up to the disgression of the DM)
2. Only your first follower will have any heroic (standard class) levels. All followers gained later on will have NPC class levels or non-adjusted base race stats.
3. Only humanoids will be available as co-horts (this was after a number of supernatural co-horts ran amok).
4. Co-horts are friends, not slaves. Comments like 'Send Jimbo to activate the doomsday device' can result in removal of followers permanently.
5. Lastly. Co-horts are NPC's. And as such are under the umbrella of control by the DM.
Most of our rules are just regurgitated and slightly focused version of the published rules for Leadership. But #5 is known as the 'Trump Clause' in our group. My players are very respectful of the power of Leadership, and as such we rarely have to resort to DM intervention. But every so often it is necessary for the greater fun of everyone at the table.
Cohorts are a cool addition to the game imo, but they have to be run correctly. They are ultimately under the DMs control if abused, and are there to further flesh out your character, rather than boost the party's power. With a clever DM, they can even be a liability - they are lower level than the PCs after all, and don't use the PC generation rules either, so stats tend to be worse.
My character (cleric of Heironeous) has a favoured soul as a cohort - she is a summoner who concentrates on defensive spells, anti-outsider spells and group buffs. She does not go toe to toe if she can help it.
The reason behind having a cohort (and the leadership feat) must be based in the game - my character has founded a temple within Cauldron and has made it more and more impressive with each level. It's inevitable really that he would get followers, and the leadership feat explains it in game terms. Can't wait to get to level 21 so he can have epic leadership...
In the game I use my 150+ followers to spread the word, help with
I have seen some really game-abusive uses of the leadership feat to make a character unstoppable due to his cohort piling on the defensive stuff, but this should be nipped in the bud by an experienced DM (or countered by increasingly focussed foes that can take out the combo).
Our party has 5 PCs and 3 cohorts by the way - and yes, that is a large number! Haven't noticed the drop in treasure per person though - I must be used to stingy DMs!
In combat, the cohorts have very clear and specialised roles, and also aren't out for glory like the PCs tend to be, so the tactics are easier to woprk out and don't slow the round down too much (unless my cohort does a Summon, which I avoid for those very reasons).
In many ways this is exactly what Dedekind was talking about (missed that post)
I hope this helps somewhat. Let us know how it goes!
|
Glad to see you, Matt!
When I saw the thread title, and that you'd replied, I assumed that Lee (aka DMDemon, our DM) was the original poster. It's no secret that the cohorts in our game have made the adventures so much easier, but also slower.
One reason our games slowed down is that some of the players with cohorts haven't made it to every session, or have been delayed, and it's quite a burden for another player to take on an unfamiliar character, often with classes, feats and/or spells from non-core sources. You have to answer the question "What can he do?", before you consider "What would he do?".
I haven't time to respond to all the points so far, as I'm off to bed, except to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Dodo (pick the potential cohort from existing friendly NPCs), and with Matt (it has to be earned in-game). The only difference I would say is, if the player has worked in-game to ensure both those conditions are met, and the PCs are actively pursuing the same goals as the NPC, I'd have them gain the NPC as an ally, without requiring the expenditure of a feat.
Lots of reasons why, but maybe expand on them later.
See you in 19 hours, Matt. Once you've finished trawling the threads we're not supposed to be on....;)
Hi Ro.. Snorter! (wtf is that name for anyway?)
I'm not sure I agree with you (or dodo) about only being able to pick from available NPCs in the vicinity. Player Characters have backgrounds, ambitions, reputations, aspirations and outlooks that are so varied that to limit cohorts to those they've met would almost certainly result in a personality mismatch of some sort between leader and follower. That is not supposed to happen. Also, if alignments are different it causes a Leadership penalty, and may prevent the character utilising their personal magnetism to best effect.
Also, there's a question of who is the story there to serve. It may seem practical to say, "right, you can pick from him, him, or her, but your level isn't high enough for him or him, so you get her. Alignment is out too, but what the hey. Tough buns. You also don't get to know anything about what that guy is good at except what game mechanics you've observed and what awkwardly worded questions you may ask of her. Do you want her? Or waste the feat?"
Plus you might get players that send their characters to a big city and throw their personalities about just so the list of potential cohorts is as big as possible. That might not suit a character who is generally that ostentatious - there's always the chance that someone the PC doesn't know (a secret admirer or something) comes to the character and offers their services.
What you could offer is a compromise which suits both parties. Work with your DM to arrange the cohort - mine didn't arrive for a month because I was fairly specific on what I wanted and that meant she had to travel from Sasserine (and it was in keeping with my character to not want someone from around Cauldron - I wouldn't get a high-level follower of Heironeous from there!) In game it worked because I picked the feat and said I was sending a message to the leaders in Sasserine requesting they send someone who fulfilled my requirements... they were already restricted as I knew that I couldn't go for another complex build which would complicate the game.
But if you want it straight away then sure, limit it to what's available - but don't let the player fool themselves into getting one that doesn't help in the way they want - they will come to resent the cohort and that's not the point.
I hope he doesn't think I'm picking on him, but don't think dodo has the right idea about the ability. A cohort isn't something you pick and change over levels, it's someone who is dedicated to the character and stays for ever. And a loyal cohort would change his or her progression to suit the needs of his or her leader - it's interesting that the player knew what progression Fellian, Fario and Shensen would follow, but not what they were capable of right now. And dodo's surprise that Shensen wasn't chosen was down the the player wanting to add a healer to the party (albeit one primarily for him) instead of choosing the character with special abilities out the wazoo. And he didn't even get that healer!
I also think Snorter is wrong - you take the feat. Otherwise you're ignoring the effect the character is having on the rest of the game world to attract the right type of person. Plus, how likely is it that the PC meets a NPC who shares the same world-view, has enough contact with the PC to build the trust, has opportunities to impress that NPC, and isn't powered too high to break the game or powered too low to die all the time? And we're not even talking about secretive mages here who want an apprentice or guardian of some sort, who might not necessarily say they want a cohort to any NPC who passes by. The feat explains that. And it gives validity to the player, and a sense that it's theirs to keep, not until the DM finds a better use for that NPC. And it justifies the DMs choice to other players who may otherwise complain that it would be their cohort if only the alignment was more compatible or some other thing they couldn't control was 'fixed'.
Long post, hope I was clear, and didn't offend dodo (I don't care about Snorter :-)
One thing that my DM has done, and I think it's a good idea, is making the PC with leadership responsible for paying the upkeep of their followers. The financial drain on the character encourages them to keep their numbers low.
Tell me about it! My temple is costing me shedloads in upkeep - thank god (quite literally) I've got loads of Create food and water available.