...said some stuff...Sounds like you've got everything under control. Laying out the ground rules like that was a good call. Good luck to ya!
Thanks pal. We will see how it goes. Huge thanks to everyone who responded to my original question. I found the suggestions offered here very helpful. Maybe I don't have to step on every land mine in regards to cohorts and followers!
Always worked it; were the leadership feat did not take effect unless the player had build a stronghold. Which is were the followers and cohort lived.
The player got to build up the cohort from the ground up as a second player. The cohort was always 2 levels behind the player.
When: The player was at there stronghold, they got to play the cohort as an additional player. Normaly the cohort was the one running the players stronghold when the player was away.
If: The player wanted to cohort to come along, then the DM would Run the cohort as an NPC.
The main Disadvantage = The cost of upkeep of the stronghold.
The main Advantage = *)= The Resorces of the stronghold and cohort would get the player Raised. *)= The Player main PC, if he died and could not or would not be raised. The Player would then be about to play the Cohort right off the bat as the lord of the stronghold, and in-hearit the equipment and resorcess of there old character with only a 2 level reduction.
I've had several players in my game get cohorts, and I handle it like this :
Player tells me what type of cohort they are looking for. 'I'd like a ranger type' or 'I want someone who can sneak better than I can in my full plate'.
I then pick the race, alignment, and class of the cohort, and build them. I give them a single paragraph backstory, and then hand the sheet to the player to run.
As GM, however, I retain the right to resume control of the cohort at any time, based on my judgement of their personality, goals, and loyalty.
For example, my wife has a Grimalkin cohort in our game. They got attacked by a pair of Minotaurs who cast their favorite spell 3 times a round (Greataxe! Greataxe! Greataxe!). The Grimalkin went from 130hp to 21hp in two rounds. As the GM, I ruled the Grimalkin, much as he liked the druid, shifted to a hummingbird and flew away at maximum speed. :) My wife didn't argue, she agreed he should and would do so, even though she was about to cast a cure serious on him when he flew.
As to followers, followers are honestly useless on adventures. Two players in the game had followers at one point, and they took all 30 of them and assigned them to guard a town, help out the townsfolk, do repairs, help with harvesting, etc. Mainly so they didn't have to deal with the mooks.
|
My groups always ignored it. After all, UA was an "expansion" rather than an update or errata (see, I still win ... don't mess with me, children).
Nope, was written by GG to be as 100% core as 1st ed players handbook. So the pally under 1st ed rules became a subclass of the cavalier not the fighter, wasn't optional as the game was laid out - wasn't an expansion and in fact was official errata to the game.
Much like mdt, my players will tell me what they are looking for in general and I will make up a stat sheet, background and inject them into my game at the appropriate time.
I have the PC run them in battles, but I generally run them as NPCs outside of combat (helps keep the focus on the players). We generally level up as a group and talk about what the cohort wants to choose. Usually the group all treat them as another member of the party and will give them magic items to keep them alive.
As for followers, usually we those those for special projects much like mdt said above. I usually tailor them for the player. (One player was building a temple to Torag so he had dwarven followers that had the skills to help build and get it going)
Much like mdt, my players will tell me what they are looking for in general and I will make up a stat sheet, background and inject them into my game at the appropriate time.
I have the PC run them in battles, but I generally run them as NPCs outside of combat (helps keep the focus on the players). We generally level up as a group and talk about what the cohort wants to choose. Usually the group all treat them as another member of the party and will give them magic items to keep them alive.
As for followers, usually we those those for special projects much like mdt said above. I usually tailor them for the player. (One player was building a temple to Torag so he had dwarven followers that had the skills to help build and get it going)
I'm definitely seeing a trend here. Cohort creation is the domain of the DM, though input from PC is allowed (such as the general role that the PC is looking for in a cohort). Combat is handled by PC (with DM enforcing cohort self preservation). Non combat situations handled by DM. I like it. Clean, easily justified to even the most argumentative player at the table.
|
|
I agree with mdt about how one is made. Now as far as how one is run, typically what I do is this. Out of combat I play them like a NPC traveling with the group, one that likes one certain PC and is inclined to do what he wants and/or try and help them.
In combat I let the PC run them and will only step in and overrule the PC IF they try and make the NPC do something I just feel there is no way they would really do.
In our group which has 6 players if everyone shows and a GM, we often have 2-4 NPC's that end up traveling with them eventually. So far we have never had any major problems and find it adds to the role playing as the PC's can interact with NPC's even when on the road.
Since AD&D 1st Ed PH predates UA, my old-school beats your "old-school".
Game ... Set ... Match !!!
Don't try to pull that UA noob stuff on me :-( MY creds remain fully intact.
**SNIP** see, I still win ... don't mess with me, children
Really.... I gotta ask if this kind of behavior necessary on this board as well? I thought this place provided respite from the childishness endemic I see on other gaming boards.
I offered an aside comment not even directly relevant to the OP's comments and you just lunge into me on some holy 'Gotcha!' quest.
If you truly are old enough to be "old school" then you should have left this sort of behavior behind by 1987 like the rest of us "grognards" did.
Apologies to all the others on this board... this whole thing is just rubbing me the wrong way.
...said some stuff...Sounds like you've got everything under control. Laying out the ground rules like that was a good call. Good luck to ya!
Indeed, make sure you let us know how it goes pappy.
I allow Leadership and cohorts.
I allow the player to make the cohort and then I modify it if I feel it necessary. I let the player run the cohort in battle and out. I only step in if I feel that the NPC is being played incorrectly or if I feel that they have concerns that need to be addressed.
In combat, the player running the cohort is very organized, rolling multiple dice, color coded, for all of the attacks.
So far, having cohorts along hasn't slowed down the game, caused any friction with any of the other players or stolen their spot light.
I play characters who make heavy use of animal companions, familiars (such as talking ravens who share my ranks in UMD and penchant for explosive wands), hirelings, dominated/charmed slaves, etc.
My GMs so far have been gracious enough to let me run them all (they have other things to worry about).
My fellow players on the other hand ABSOLUTELY FREAKING HATE IT. They think I do it just to power game and take advantage of th economy of actions (trying to make the best of each and every round's worth of actions).
That's not true of course. I just GM'd a whole hell of a lot as a kid, so now that I get to play I have to have a character who controls things, who has underlings of a sort. It's just a holdover from all the evil NPCs I used to play with.
Anyways, I know what it's like to piss everyone off because they have to wait on you to finish your 2nd or 3rd turn in the same round. Avoid stealing the spot light at all costs. It's a cooperative game and everyone there is there to have fun.
Before taking up the Leadership feat or something similarly powerful, you might want to check with the PLAYERS as well as the GM to see what they think. They might appreciate the power it provides to the group, or they might hate those second turns you get with a passion.
Creative Director
|
I've generally let the PC who takes the Leadership feat build his cohort and control it. Less work for me, the GM. Sometimes, a player specifically requests that I provide a cohort, or wants to make an established NPC in the campaign a cohort, in which case I would stat up the cohort and then let the PC control it.
That said... it's important to remember that cohorts hog game time. The amount of time you're playing doesn't increase when you take Leadership or play a druid or a summoner, but the amount of time you'll be using on your turns in combat does increase. As a result, the amount of time other players get to play the game decreases, so it makes sense that if you're always playing characters who have lots of companions that the other players would get fed up. It's not really a question of balance. It's a question of robbing time from them to play.
As a result, I generally try to keep the number of players with companions to a minimum in the game, and get pretty hard-assed with those players if they take too long deciding what their companions are doing in the game. And if I have more than 5 players in the group, I usually don't allow Leadership and would recommend druids to take a domain rather than an animal companion. (Which is why I prefer to have 5 players in a group I run...)
The problem with pre-rolling is that a lot of roleplayers get so excited about what's going on they forget what they rolled while they wait for their turn to come up.
Furthermore, a lot of players will have a certain action in mind (such as charging or fireball) which totally gets spoiled by the actions of another party member or NPC at a higher initiative. When their turn comes up, they take EVEN longer than normal, because they have to spend the time coming up with something new.
Also, if a player is paying too much attention to what he's GOING to be doing, he will often miss out on what is happening RIGHT NOW. This of course leads to the middle problem above since the situation changes without their being aware of it.
...Or at least that's the REPEATED experience of ALL my groups. I even had a few die roll cheaters, though they weren't common.
here is how i would rework the leadership feat. i will use feminine prounouns for the sake of convenience.
the cohort starts 2 levels below the pc that brought her to life, but is treated as a player character in all forms unless noted below
a cohort cannot take leadership
a cohort is denied a familiar, animal companion, mount or the like, if there is an alternative, one of the alternatives must be taken.
the player who took the feat that gave her life has control of her in combat
the dm gets to remind the player of any issues she has of how the player plays the cohort.
the cohort is created by the player, but has to be critiqued by the dm, she may require the player to write a 3/4 page backstory, and answer a 3 page questionare about the cohort
the cohort gets her fait share of experience and loot as a pc, the master of the cohort shall not be stingy to her, or else the dm can interfere. even if you use the close sibling/spouse excuse, remember, your younger sister won't like you cheating her out of her share and next time you go to town, she may possibly inform any or all of the following indiivudals, mommy, the courts, the city guard, a paladin, a circle of friends, a bard, or even the town cryer. and remember, she won't be suicidal, and shouldn't be played as such. cohorts do not have morale that reaches suicidal degrees, unless they are from a proud warrior culture.
I've generally let the PC who takes the Leadership feat build his cohort and control it. Less work for me, the GM. Sometimes, a player specifically requests that I provide a cohort, or wants to make an established NPC in the campaign a cohort, in which case I would stat up the cohort and then let the PC control it.
<snip>
And if I have more than 5 players in the group, I usually don't allow Leadership and would recommend druids to take a domain rather than an animal companion.
I'm actually surprised at the amount of cohort-dislike (I won't call it 'hate'), given the prevalence of animal companions, summons, familiars et.al. in the game. I haven't seen anyone on the list poo-poo'ing Improved Familiar, for example.
I mean, yes, a player can become an action-hog, especially if he combines several of the above (Druid, Summoner, Wizards being the likely culprits), but it's not the Leadership feat that's the problem. The various Summon Monster spells are far worse in regards to hogging action time than a single cohort (as someone noted, followers are generally worthless in a fight).
I like Mr.Jacobs approach - it's consistent. If Leadership = Bad, then Animal Companions = Bad, Improved Familiar = Bad, Summon-heavy Casters = Bad. If one's a good option in your game, all should be - but IMO stacking all those options atop one another is probably bad on a single character.
Someone else recommended allowing another PC run your cohort; the same logic is easily extended to running various summoned critters to spread out the game time more evenly.
Also, don't be a jerk. Number one rule of the Paizo mesageboards. :P
Mr. Fishy thought the first rule of the Paizo messageboards was
"You don't talk about Paizo messageboards"
I thought it was: "You don't talk on Paizo message boards."
Oh, wait! that just obviated our entire existence...
a cohort is denied a familiar, animal companion, mount or the like, if there is an alternative, one of the alternatives must be taken.
Your suggestions are in general pretty good Neko, but I would ammend this point.
Familiars don't really use time in combat, and proper mounts (such as that provided by the cavalier class) tend to be an extension of the rider. Basically this should enforce that any companion chosen function as part of the owner rather than an individual combatant.
Also, along this route, no SUMMONER cohorts lol.
heres my update to that suggestion of reworking leadership, the cohort denied a pet.
***Edit*** A "player" (not character) may only have a maximum of any 1 of the following; a "pet" gained from a class feature, or a cohort. she (The player) may only have one summon spell active at one time. any alternatives to the above must be taken if a pet is already taken, a player may be allowed to retrain the old class feature with dm approval and IC justification. ***Edit***
oO I actually use the one summon rule, never dared to bring it up afraid of being burned a heretic ^^
People seem generally fond of summoning >_<
i can find animal companions/familiars that do not slow combat
anything used as a mount, assuming the mount is used for overland travel and not blatantly used for ubercharging.
birds used to scout and send/carry messages (such as a hawk or falcon)
small animals taken as familiars for asthetics or for small bonuses, such as the weasel that provides alertness and a reflex bonus but rarely leaves the pocket or a cat meant to relieve in character stress.
imps, pixies, or mephits trained in crafting who do repairs on party clothing or equipment.
good uses (i mean best use) of a cohort, party healer, maybe you picked up a youthful, traveling pacifist aasimaar priestess of sarenrae whos afraid of blood geysers and burning buildings. she does a good job healing party wounds, but the shredded corpses freak her out.
another good use, party trapfinder, not everybody likes those pesky traps, maybe you found a little tian-min girl on the streets who seemed a little odd, she may tag along to deal with the traps, for a portion of the loot, a meal ticket, a place to stay and some of the luxuries adventurers afford.
yet another; utility belt, provides the basic functions that make adventuring more convenient, from teleport spells, to conjured meals, and a few other utilitarian abilities other's may want. maybe overlap a little with the former 2.
bad uses for cohorts
diplomancer, if the player wanted to be a diplomancer, it should be with his primary pc, not his proxy. maybe the persuasive 1/2 elf bard with her amazing social skills wasn't a good idea.
combatant; anything primarily built for combat will have issues, as that will be hard to effectively judge. maybe the 1/2 orc fighter with his massive strength may not work so well, unless the party found a way to use him as a pack mule.
|
Creative Director
|
Animal companions are generally a lot simpler to run than cohorts, since animal companions don't have NEARLY as many options. And familiars are even simpler than that. Both are simple enough that their inclusion in a game is less disruptive than the inclusion, say, of a wizard cohort.
I actually don't hate cohorts. I actually really like them. As a PC, it's really fun to have a sidekick. As a GM, its great to see a player take such an interest in your world that he/she wants to have an NPC buddy from it, and they make for GREAT story development opportunities. You just have to keep an eye on how they impact the flow of play at the table is all. Every table is different.
Something important to remember whenever you are dealing with cohorts, animal companions, or anything similar, is that the guidelines change significantly depending on whether you are creating a character with a cohort or adding a cohort to an already existing character. You have to assess things like party balance and time consumption based on the player, not an individual character. That means when you add a cohort to an already existing character (who is presumably a good and balanced fit with the party already) you have to be very careful that it doesn't add too much.
On the other hand, if the cohort(s) are a part of the character concept from the start, or introduced to rectify some deficit like a Bard who doesn't have anything to do in combat or a Fighter who's getting bored not having anything to say, then you follow a completely different set of rules. The only hard rule is "however many characters a player is playing, compare them as a whole to whatever the other players are playing". Here are some more fluid guidelines I've picked up from my years of experience (both as player and GM)
-Don't give multiple characters to someone without a decent amount of roleplaying experience or familiarity with the game mechanics.
-You should have one, and only one, primary personality who handles most of the interaction. It doesn't have to be the main character, but there should only be one per player.
-Regardless of player familiarity with combat, having a number of active combatant characters equal to more than half the number of players tends to not work well.
-Avoid playing two characters that interact with each other a lot, it will keep you from forming bonds with the other players.
-Come up with an in-character reason for all of your characters to take a single share of loot. If you can't, make sure they will provide income or valuable services to the rest of the party.
i say the best use of a cohort is to compensate party lack. like a healing cleric or a trapfinding rogue. or any other less desired role.
There seems to be a running theme that says Cohorts = Bad because people have to sit around while one player moves his cast of thousands.
Like I mean, really?
What does it take to resolve a whole bunch of actions? Less than 2 minutes tops?
I think the problem is more about slow players dithering about procrastinating than a problem with Cohorts.
Also, if someone tries being a min/max munchkin, the GM can always say no.
cohorts aren't terribleby themselves, but it can add up quickly if there are more cohorts, animal companions, familiars and summons, add a good number of players and you have a good chance for people to lose focus.
If the summons, animal companions and cohorts hog more spotlight than other players on a regular basis something isn't quite right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I solved the problem of PC's choosing cohorts and settling down in keeps or castles by killing cohorts (horribly and violently) and burning down keeps or if I feel frisky reducing them to rubble with multiple Earthquakes. One time I took care of a PC tower by having an NPC make it into a small flying citadel and fly it away, took them years (literally) to catch up to it and when they did I sunk it in the ocean and tried to drown them all (after of course placing a dimensional lock on the chamber they were in). Fun times.
They pretty much stay away from any thing of the kind as a result. One player did keep a cohort for a long time though mostly by keeping her away from combat as much as possible whenever possible.
Remind me to never, ever, play in a game you run. I hate heavy handed GM's who don't ban something they don't like. Instead they ramrod the players and rip their characters apart until they manage to guess what you are ok with and what you aren't. That's horrible GMing.
Remind me to never, ever, play in a game you run. I hate heavy handed GM's who don't ban something they don't like. Instead they ramrod the players and rip their characters apart until they manage to guess what you are ok with and what you aren't. That's horrible GMing.I solved the problem of PC's choosing cohorts and settling down in keeps or castles by killing cohorts (horribly and violently) and burning down keeps or if I feel frisky reducing them to rubble with multiple Earthquakes. One time I took care of a PC tower by having an NPC make it into a small flying citadel and fly it away, took them years (literally) to catch up to it and when they did I sunk it in the ocean and tried to drown them all (after of course placing a dimensional lock on the chamber they were in). Fun times.
They pretty much stay away from any thing of the kind as a result. One player did keep a cohort for a long time though mostly by keeping her away from combat as much as possible whenever possible.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I think what that guy was doing was 'having a wind up'.
Surely that isn't a serious post.
hehe, oh come on horrible players deserve horrible GMs !
I know I do have tendencies to 'ramrod' some players sometimes ^^
Yes sometimes I ramrod and it probably is not fair but we all know sidekicks deserve a horrible death. :-)
You're one of those people who voted to kill Jason Todd way back when, aren't you? LOL
|
|
I was thinking that since the cohort is a NPC, I (the awesome DM) should be the one who controls cohort actions, but I don't want to be capricious and take away the "coolness factor" of the feat from the player.
I'd advise against this. 1) You don't need more work as a DM and 2) Having you run it kills the fun. If you run the Cohort, IMO, the player shouldn't be required to pay (with a Feat) for it.
It would be helpful to hear what other DMs are doing in this regard. Are you letting PC's manage their cohort as a pseudo-second character,
The cohort rules at our table:
1) The player's responsible for keeping track of it and RPing it.
2) The player builds it, unless s/he requests otherwise or it's a plot NPC that has been turned into a cohort.
3) No Item Creation Feats.
In my group, cohorts mainly set up flanks (and yet there's no Rogue in the party!) and activate Bardic Music. They use very little extra time at the table.
I solved the problem of PC's choosing cohorts and settling down in keeps or castles by killing cohorts (horribly and violently) and burning down keeps or if I feel frisky reducing them to rubble with multiple Earthquakes. One time I took care of a PC tower by having an NPC make it into a small flying citadel and fly it away, took them years (literally) to catch up to it and when they did I sunk it in the ocean and tried to drown them all (after of course placing a dimensional lock on the chamber they were in). Fun times.
They pretty much stay away from any thing of the kind as a result. One player did keep a cohort for a long time though mostly by keeping her away from combat as much as possible whenever possible.
So...your dislike of cohorts and keeps made you vindictive, and made your PC waste a feat...if my DM did that to me, I would have been a bit perturbed.
It costs a FEAT to get Leadership, now in Pathfinder, feats are a tiny bit more prevalent (+3 feats @ 20 for any class but fighter), but it's still a feat that could have been used for a combat bonus, or a craft skill instead.
A Base of operations for PCs should be a RP tool, not something to destroy while they're off on their adventure...
I agree with only 1 "companion" whether it's a cohort or animal companion.
Cohorts take part of the players XP per the RAW, that's an additional Cohort Tax.
I let the players run their cohorts, up to a point, if they try to abuse the cohort, have the cohort leave, perhaps not permanently, maybe they just leave in a huff...or refuse to fight for a few rounds, letting the player remember how important they are to them...
|
|
I agree with a lot of whats been said about cohorts here. I allow players to have cohorts, and I will let them run them in battle if they try and prepare for it and not take too long. If they are dragging behind in battle because of a cohort I just take the reigns and control the cohort for the rest of the fight if they are taking too long. I am nice about this taking control, and as a general rule the players tend to try and run the cohorts effectively because they don't want me to run them.
As for experience and treasure. I don't give the cohort any of either. There is a formula in the book in the description of the feat that I use to calculate exp that the cohort gets while adventuring with the group.
((Cohorts level/PC that owns cohorts level)*(exp that Cohort owner gained while cohort was present))
It averages out to the cohort leveling about the same time the player does for the adventures in which it participates.
I do not however give the cohort a share of the treasure. It starts with wealth equal to its level as determined on the NPC chart, and then from that point relies largely on his/her master to pay and outfit him/her. In some groups where the players have a good deal of RP interaction with the cohort they may "Pay" the cohort every so often a share, and often the entire group will donate magic items and hand me downs to the cohort, the cohort is not entitled to a share.
We divvy up magic items with a lotting system, and if the player who is controlling the cohort wants to cast their lot on an item for the cohort, thats perfectly acceptable in our games. But if there is any question of interest in an item that is not being lotted on then: (Player > Cohort).
The cohort will end up with enough treasure to merit sticking around and the player controlling it can shore up some weakness with their own share of the loot. The players are already paying in time for the cohort, they should not have to give up loot/exp as well. I don't give druids animal companions EXP or a share of the treasure, so I don't do it for cohorts either. All treasure and loot is divided per the DM between the players regardless of how many entities they are controlling. If those players then want to give a portion of their loot to a cohort that has been helping them out, then that is their business.
But that is just how I run it in my own games. It was not always like that but after a few heated discussions about one player controlling 2/5 of the groups wealth its just the way we have always done it. The end result is usually still one player controlling about 2/5 of our groups wealth. But in my experience, players have less of an issue with that if they got to choose how their fair share of the wealth was distributed. They may still give it to the cohort, but at that point its their choice, and not a mandatory tax.
YMMV
love,
malkav
The floating tower plot was a really good one and actually the players really enjoyed it (except the player that owned it of course he was none too pleased). It literally took 3 years of real time (and 2 years of game time) to track it down. If I had not destroyed all of their bases they would not have moved to a new territory to become Barons and Dukes so in the end they made out. :-)
Sounds great, but in the meantime, you just penalised one player a FEAT to pay for the adventure. If, on the other hand, it was just a RP obtained 'Cohort' as opposed to a Ldr Feat one - then fair play.
Sounds great, but in the meantime, you just penalised one player a FEAT to pay for the adventure. If, on the other hand, it was just a RP obtained 'Cohort' as opposed to a Ldr Feat one - then fair play.
For some reason, I'm just imagining a fighter waking up one morning to find out that he can't swing a sword or shoot a bow worth a lick anymore. He turns away from his practice dummy in his breakfast nook, wracked with confusion, to see his Base Attack Bonus scurrying out of the door.
Three years later, he's able to find it and re-obtain his BAB.
For some reason, I'm just imagining ...Three years later, he's able to find it and re-obtain his BAB.
Actually that's what I had in my mind too - would you take a 'normal' combat feat off a player with no refund?
As I say, a freebie is one thing, a Feat is quite another :P