RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think that the leadership feat is too powerful as written. In my experience, a cohort is simply too close in power level to the PCs and takes too much of the spotlight away from them. I think at least that a cohort should be capped at character level -3 instead of character level -2. This is purely based on my experience, and I'm sure others have different points of view.
Thoughts?
|
|
I think that the leadership feat is too powerful as written. In my experience, a cohort is simply too close in power level to the PCs and takes too much of the spotlight away from them. I think at least that a cohort should be capped at character level -3 instead of character level -2. This is purely based on my experience, and I'm sure others have different points of view.
Thoughts?
i think the -2 is ok
inan adventure a level 3 cohort would cause more troubles than help ifthe party level is 6... at least in level 4 he would bea bit better able to stand his own ground
I agree with you. I actually do think it's far too powerful. (In my game our bard wanted a pet buffalo to ride into battle. I thought about it, and nearly decided to make it a sentient buffalo with barbarian levels until I realized that, with its current stats, it'd be blowing the party out of the water, so I adapted it to the new AC system as a paladin-3). As it currently exists, we have to remember that A: the cohort isn't under direct control from the PC, and B: It's an entirely optional feat. Unlike the other feats, it's not even implied that it should be allowed, merely that it's a possibility. The DM is always free to limit the list and/or give it crappy stats. I'd rather have the DM doing that than make it level-4, which may not even survive to levels of usefulness.
|
Since the feat is optional, don't allow it if it throw's your game out of wack.
I think the point of the feat is to give a mechanic for a boost of party strength (when someone does not show up) while giving the impression of continuity (yes, this fellow has travelled with the group before, he's my loyal retainer) or if the party is small to begin with. This makes it necessary to be close to the average
party level to be able to contribute.
The -2 level prevents the cohort from overshadowing the PC's but
keeps the cohort still viable.
Also Leadership is there mostly to balance out a group that might have fewer players more than to make one char super-powerful.
Exactly. Saying Leadership is overpowered is like saying having 5 characters in your party is overpowered. Personally, I would remove the Leadership feat altogether in favour of just having generic (optional) rules for attracting henchmen (a la AD&D).
|
|
Also Leadership is there mostly to balance out a group that might have fewer players more than to make one char super-powerful.Exactly. Saying Leadership is overpowered is like saying having 5 characters in your party is overpowered. Personally, I would remove the Leadership feat altogether in favour of just having generic (optional) rules for attracting henchmen (a la AD&D).
i would like both, since thefighter don't get his fortress at 9th level, or the cleric his cathedral
what if i need to raise an army to fight the crusade?
I played in a Leadership-heavy game for several years (3.5 Ed., of course). It had a quasi-military theme in the background of a low-magic world. The Cohorts were built as support characters (Healers, Marshalls, True-Speakers, and the like) who provided crucial spells and abilities while letting the actual PCs do something interesting. The followers themselves were support combatants, usually with ranged weapons, and the occasional support crafter.
To be honest, every complaint about Leadership listed here was absolutely applicable to the game. The Cohorts, while well-built and well-played, were secondary PCs who didn't advance as quickly. In a five-player game with three cohorts, they added a lot of time. It gave those of us with cohorts the chance to act twice in everything.
The followers also added a lot of time to combat when they were involved, because it took extra rolls and movement to make it all work. The DM couldn't kill them off with an AoE spell or two, because of an Abjurer Cohort ready to dispel anything. Don't get me wrong, they died easily enough, but we were cagy players who worked hard to keep them alive.
Frankly, Leadership can work very well in some campaigns. But it can really slow down others. Given the existing rules for hiring craftsmen and experts, I don't think there's a desperate need for followers. Cohorts are nice for smaller groups, but I'm not sure what necessary niche they fill.
Accordingly, I'd like to see leadership moved back to an optional feat. I also think it would be wise to require at least two feats to get a cohort, considering how many feats players get now and how powerful a cohort can be.
I don't think its really overpowered per se, as the its essentially adding another character to the party. Its like taking a feat to allow someone to run two characters. The main benefit to the feat is that the cohort will watch out for his buddy before the party itself, but generally, they will probably overall help everyone.
I did have someone recently give up on having a cohort in favor of running the cohort because he just didn't like running two characters, because he didn't feel like he was ever playing his main character.
If anything, I think that, perhaps, the cohort aspect of the feat might need to be divorced from the horde of other followers. You could have a cohort feat, then make that a prerequisite for the Leadership feat that allows you to have your mass of followers. Most people won't want to burn two feats to have a host of people at their beck and call who are mainly useful during downtime.
Also Leadership is there mostly to balance out a group that might have fewer players more than to make one char super-powerful.Exactly. Saying Leadership is overpowered is like saying having 5 characters in your party is overpowered. Personally, I would remove the Leadership feat altogether in favour of just having generic (optional) rules for attracting henchmen (a la AD&D).
Oh god would I like the henchmen rules expanded.
Everything about Leadership has always required the DM to tailor it to his own campaign.
-Nothing says the cohort has to participate in combat.
-Nothing says the cohort has to be actively run by master's player at all times.
-Nothing says the cohort has to use the same stat-generation system as the PCs.
-Nothing says the cohort has to have the same pool of class choices as the PCs.
-Nothing says the cohort has to be built by the master's player.
It's (or rather, should be clarified to be) an entirely optional feat to use, and the DM is empowered to decide how (of if) he uses it.
Thus, there's no reason to nerf it.
-Matt
|
|
Everything about Leadership has always required the DM to tailor it to his own campaign.
-Nothing says the cohort has to participate in combat.
-Nothing says the cohort has to be actively run by master's player at all times.
-Nothing says the cohort has to use the same stat-generation system as the PCs.
-Nothing says the cohort has to have the same pool of class choices as the PCs.
-Nothing says the cohort has to be built by the master's player.It's (or rather, should be clarified to be) an entirely optional feat to use, and the DM is empowered to decide how (of if) he uses it.
Thus, there's no reason to nerf it.
-Matt
FULLY AGREE
Leadership is just a game mechanic to represent something that can happen in a story (followers)... and as a story resource, it's subject to DM's final approval. If your stories have no place for a group that grows into an army then just tell your players "No, you can't take it."... is it that hard? If you ask me, it's way easier than crying nerf until the writers please you.
If your game is about the archetypical unlikely heroes out to save the world then sure, there's no room for armies in the PCs payroll, but just because your game has no place for that doesn't mean that one else should be allowed to.
If it's a story resource, then it shouldn't be codified into the rules as a feat.
Yup.
Besides, there shouldn't be a mechanical penalty for characters in follower-appropriate campaigns; if your campaign is designed to accommodate followers as a natural course of the story, characters should gain those followers as part of the story, not as part of their stat blocks.
Yup.
Case in point: In Adventure Paths, how many villains with devout henchmen have the Leadership feat listed in their stat block?
Excellent point.
|
|
I love the idea of the Leadership feat, but I believe it's not a case of the feat being too powerful or too weak, it's a case of it opening a big can of worms, and not addressing any of the issues.
We've played with several cohorts and followers over the years, and questions I've had to ad-hoc as a DM are:
- how much of the party treasure does a cohort get?
- will a cohort sit at home and make magic items for the leader for free?
- who's paying the upkeep for followers?
I don't mind making decisions, but Leadership is one place where DM to DM, the game is run differently. I would recommend:
- get rid of the complicated leadership score and just set the Cohort at 2-3 levels below the PC.
- Leadership be broken into 2 feats (one for Cohort, one for Followers)
- Cohorts have a defined amount of treasure given to them
- Followers require monthly upkeep
- With the new no-XP cost of magic items, a cohort will make a limited amount of magic items (up to 1000 gp x his level per month).
That would go far to clear up many areas of grayness.
If anything, I think that, perhaps, the cohort aspect of the feat might need to be divorced from the horde of other followers. You could have a cohort feat, then make that a prerequisite for the Leadership feat that allows you to have your mass of followers. Most people won't want to burn two feats to have a host of people at their beck and call who are mainly useful during downtime.
D20 Modern did something similar in the D20 Past supplement by creating a feat called Sidekick. The Dragon Cohort feat from the Draconomicon work in a similar manner.
Edit:
Additionally, Iron Heroes imposes a monthly cost of 100 gold for a cohort (spending money) and lowers the maximum level of a cohort with PC class levels as opposed to a cohort with NPC class levels. I am not sure if either would be a useful change, but I thought I would mention them.
Accordingly, I'd like to see leadership moved back to an optional feat. I also think it would be wise to require at least two feats to get a cohort, considering how many feats players get now and how powerful a cohort can be.
I'm ok with both of these.
I don't mind making decisions, but Leadership is one place where DM to DM, the game is run differently. I would recommend:- get rid of the complicated leadership score and just set the Cohort at 2-3 levels below the PC.
- Leadership be broken into 2 feats (one for Cohort, one for Followers)
- Cohorts have a defined amount of treasure given to them
- Followers require monthly upkeep
- With the new no-XP cost of magic items, a cohort will make a limited amount of magic items (up to 1000 gp x his level per month).That would go far to clear up many areas of grayness.
-I'm against of lack of leadership score. It keeps charisma from being a dump stat for non-charisma characters who want leadership.
-Broken down into 2 feats is a good idea.
-I'm very very against the rules stipulating how much treasure is given to the cohort. The rules don't stipulate how players divide treasure amongst themselves. It's up to the party. Some pool everything, some sell everything, some split everything, and some do a combination. The beauty of 3e is that it's so open-ended it allows DMs and players to make those kinds of decisions. As it stands, either the PC or the party have to pay for the cohort's gear, which is one of the big downfalls. Having the rulebooks specifically stipulate how to do things like wealth is a big step towards 4e (yes, I'm being slightly dramatic, but it's true).
-Frankly, I would just say no magic item creation for cohorts (and I do, in my game). It's simple enough to create an Magic item-b#*$& who stands back in combat and then outfits the party back in town. The easiest thing to do about this is to simply say that no, he or she cannot make magical items, instead of finding a roundabout way of doing so.
|
|
If it's a story resource, then it shouldn't be codified into the rules as a feat. Major artifacts are story resources, too, but that doesn't mean there should be a feat that lets players spontaneously acquire major artifacts.
Besides, there shouldn't be a mechanical penalty for characters in follower-appropriate campaigns; if your campaign is designed to accommodate followers as a natural course of the story, characters should gain those followers as part of the story, not as part of their stat blocks.
That's a valid point. I was just recently thinking of a character I'm playing who has aquired a sort of 'henchman' and was thinking of picking up the Leadership feat to 'make it official' and then realized that the character has a 10 Charisma, and so no amount of fame, status or money would ever allow him to have a follower or henchman...
Making it a Feat *option* isn't bad, but a curmudgeonly old Wizard should still be able to attract an apprentice without the Feat (especially since he's not interested in a small army of 1st level NPC classes to go with it).
That's a valid point. I was just recently thinking of a character I'm playing who has aquired a sort of 'henchman' and was thinking of picking up the Leadership feat to 'make it official' and then realized that the character has a 10 Charisma, and so no amount of fame, status or money would ever allow him to have a follower or henchman...
Why not?
Charisma represents a persons people power, the fact that it helps him gain notoriety and more effective recruiting henchmen makes complete sense to me. That said, why couldn't your player take leadership?
|
My question is can you please adjust the prerequisite, Our DM houseruled that you can take it at level 5 since there is no feat at 6th level. I would much rather it be 7th level than 5th.
You know what. If it stays at 6th it's one more thing that fighters get ahead of everyone else....Although I agree that it shouldn't be dropped to 5th level.
|
My question is can you please adjust the prerequisite, Our DM houseruled that you can take it at level 5 since there is no feat at 6th level. I would much rather it be 7th level than 5th.You know what. If it stays at 6th it's one more thing that fighters get ahead of everyone else....Although I agree that it shouldn't be dropped to 5th level.
No it's not, it's not a combat feat, a fighter can't take it at 6th either.
|
|
No it's not, it's not a combat feat, a fighter can't take it at 6th either.My question is can you please adjust the prerequisite, Our DM houseruled that you can take it at level 5 since there is no feat at 6th level. I would much rather it be 7th level than 5th.You know what. If it stays at 6th it's one more thing that fighters get ahead of everyone else....Although I agree that it shouldn't be dropped to 5th level.
That's what I get when I surf forums at work on a computer without beta on it, usually I check something like that before posting....I don't like the taste of my shoes.
No it's not, it's not a combat feat, a fighter can't take it at 6th either.My question is can you please adjust the prerequisite, Our DM houseruled that you can take it at level 5 since there is no feat at 6th level. I would much rather it be 7th level than 5th.You know what. If it stays at 6th it's one more thing that fighters get ahead of everyone else....Although I agree that it shouldn't be dropped to 5th level.
Yeah, looks like 6th level is a bit silly considering.
|
I like the feat. I don't think it causes any problems that the player doesn't cause already.
I've played it before and had fun. I also have a player now in my CotCT game with a cohort (pseudodragon). I use it to involve the other players in a conversation or help get them involved in the plot. In this case he is interacting with the Wizard's familiar and Druid's animal companion. I think it has been useful and helpful for me to have in the game.
It's also fun to have him go against what the player wants, exerting his self preservation and personality, when it suits me.
I'd love to run a game with everyone with the Leadership feat.
If it's a story resource, then it shouldn't be codified into the rules as a feat.
Oh indeed, I fully agree with you in that it should be story-driven instead of feat-inscribed, but squares and Rules Lawyers alike won't allow anything to happen unless it's explicitly written in the book.
Still, it's not that bad an idea to make standarized criteria regarding quantity and quality of a PC's followers by level, as the more loosely-structured your game, the more it is open to debate but yeah, I guess we could do away with the feat and instead move those criteria to a Pathfinder's Game Master Guide.
|
|
I've put it at 5th level in my game. Since as you've said you can't get it at 6th now.
I like the idea of splitting it into cohort and followers. Makes it more clean. Especially since you can attach a requirement for followers being that you have to have a base of operations rather than a roving army.