|
How would you all go about handling the skill dealing with leadership. Would you have the player run the cohort? would you have the rest of the NPC's join the party of players at all? What would you do with the rest of the followers? anything?
As a DM I have always had a problem with the Leadership skill because I tended to find it cumbersome and a pain in the butt to be honest. The Cohort was just one more thing that I had to worry about as a DM and I hated that. I do not mind running an NPC for the DM but for the player too?
Can I get your opinions on this and how you would run it? Why you would or would not allow it?
Let me know, PLEASE! :)
-jon
Creative Director
|
I normally let the player run his cohort in combat, but often step in to make decisions for the cohort at times. The GM has enough going on during combat to keep track of, and cohorts should normally work VERY well with the boss (the PC who has the Leadership feat), so letting the PC control them in combat is a perfect solution.
I normally let the player run his cohort in combat, but often step in to make decisions for the cohort at times. The GM has enough going on during combat to keep track of, and cohorts should normally work VERY well with the boss (the PC who has the Leadership feat), so letting the PC control them in combat is a perfect solution.
This is what my DM does as well. As for creation, I'm involved on a conceptual level, and I get to do level-ups, but it's the DM from the ground up.
My DM has pretty much given me full control over my cohort (as he has the rest of the group and theirs) given that we continue to roleplay my cohort as a separate thinking individual. It's not a summoned creature or under any sort of magical compulsion. I have full control over the build of my cohort because, ultimately, I am playing that character too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I normally let the player run his cohort in combat, but often step in to make decisions for the cohort at times. The GM has enough going on during combat to keep track of, and cohorts should normally work VERY well with the boss (the PC who has the Leadership feat), so letting the PC control them in combat is a perfect solution.
Pretty much this also. (Same goes for familiars, special mounts, and animal companions.)
Cohorts I create--with the player's ok and input in mind--and will RP so the player isn't talking to his or herself. There is a character with Leadership in my campaign whose followers are connected to her somewhat complex backstory so I play them as I can provide information the character (or player) wouldn't know. But the player still commands them in combat (and generally will likely do what they say in other situations).
For future campaigns, I've thought about handing companions to other players. For example, hand the Wizard's familiar to the player of the party Fighter. It allows them to use party tactics while still allowing the companions to "surprise" and work as the separate personalities they are from their PC comrade.
In general, I just disallow the Leadership feat unless I'm having trouble finding players.
That doesn't mean that PCs can't befriend or hire NPCs, of course.
I take Leadership as one of the nice things high CHA characters can have. To take it away from them would be nerfing them in a way I don't think is appropriate.
However, I think the Cohort can be far too high a level for characters which aren't CHA focused.
I'd definitely consider dropping the Cohort level and letting the CHA bonus boost it back up.
Funny, but I've never quite made the connect between CHA and Leadership. Yes, I know that CHA can make you impressive, inspiring, and likeable (though not necessarily all at the same time), but there are certainly facets of INT and WIS that lend themselves just as well to getting people to following you. You might LIKE a charismatic (yet dumb) person, but would you follow them? The best leaders would be brilliant, intuitive AND charismatic.
Also note that Leadership has NO Charisma prerequisite. The prerequisite it does have (7th level), is one of success. YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If players use Leadership, does that then mean the DM can give villains the Leadership feat without increasing the CR of the encounter?
I take Leadership as one of the nice things high CHA characters can have. To take it away from them would be nerfing them in a way I don't think is appropriate.
Or perhaps it's nerfing characters without a high charisma that they don't automatically get followers upon establishing a stronghold, as they did in AD&D.
At any rate, I've seen a few players who seem to reason along the lines: "I'm too lazy to roleplay a good relationship with an existing NPC, so I'll take the Leadership feat and a loyal slave...er, NPC...will magically pop out of the woodwork." ;-)
|
One thing I see some people do that I've never been sure is correct is continuing to restrict the Cohort's level even after he's been 'attracted' and joined the group.
Cohort Level: You can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than yourself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level (see Creating NPCs). A cohort can be of any race or class. The cohort's alignment may not be opposed to your alignment on either the law/chaos or good/evil axis, and you take a –1 penalty to your Leadership score if you recruit a cohort of an alignment different from your own.
A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party's XP. Instead, divide the cohort's level by your level. Multiply this result by the total XP awarded to you, then add that number of experience points to the cohort's total.
If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than your level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed to attain the next level.
Based on the first sentence, the only time I keep the Leadership Score in mind in regards to a Cohort is for their initial level (unless the PC's level would make the Cohort a bit lower as they cannot be 2 higher). After that, I don't believe the Leadership Score matters for determining the max level of the Cohort, only the PC's level does.
After all, it says that is the level it says you can 'attract' a cohort up to. Once you have him, I've always gone by the rules near the bottom where he gets his own kind of XP and stays at least two levels below the attracting PC. The Leadership Score just affects the followers by that point.
Have people been playing it differently, where the Leadership Score continues to influence the maximum level of your Cohort? If so, why?
Funny, but I've never quite made the connect between CHA and Leadership. Yes, I know that CHA can make you impressive, inspiring, and likeable (though not necessarily all at the same time), but there are certainly facets of INT and WIS that lend themselves just as well to getting people to following you. You might LIKE a charismatic (yet dumb) person, but would you follow them? The best leaders would be brilliant, intuitive AND charismatic.Also note that Leadership has NO Charisma prerequisite. The prerequisite it does have (7th level), is one of success. YMMV.
The Leadership base score is character level + CHA modifier.
So, as per RAW, there is a direct relationship between leadership and cha.
Yes, there's a mechanical link, but as others have pointed out, it's not enough to hinder the Leadership feat with a +0 CHA. Level is a much bigger deal unless you have UBER CHARISMA. I'd much rather have Leadership be dependent on INT+WIS+CHA mods, which would make overall level less of a factor. If the table went Level+Int+Wis+Cha, you could have lower level leaders with larger followings, provided they had good mental stats.
I guess we'd both like 'pure' level to have less to do with Leadership; you just want it to be more on CHA, where I think it should roll all the mental stats together for it. CHA bonus by itself wouldn't be granular enough in terms of numbers.
If players all craft magic items, does this mean that DMs can put more monsters in without increasing the CR of the encounter?CRs aren't super-useful in 3.5, where party power can vary ENORMOUSLY. Let's keep that argument to another thread? =)
-Cross
Missing the point, but what I said was largely in jest.
You don't add CR for creatures summoned by a wizard's spells as they're part of the character. You don't add CR for a druid's animal companion as it's part of the character. Leadership is a feat and thus part of the character. Is its effect on challenge incorporated into the cost of the spent feat?
As a comparison, it would be more fair to say that if the party can sit down and use their crafting feats for a month, that gives the villains time to sit down and do the same with their own crafting feats.
If you'll look back, I was one of those "others".
Yes, there's a mechanical link, but as others have pointed out, it's not enough to hinder the Leadership feat with a +0 CHA.
Crosswind pointed out how little CHA plays in Leadership vis-a-vis Cohorts, though, to be fair, you didn't refute him, but nor did you confirm his argument clearly. Apologies for the confusion.
My opinion: CHA is good, as it stands, for Followers, not so much for Cohorts.
Why? What is the rationale?
My opinion: CHA is good, as it stands, for Followers, not so much for Cohorts.
As it stands...RAW. You get more followers having a high CHA, but, as we've discussed, CHA doesn't really determine what level of Cohort you attract (b/c it maxes out too quickly). Maybe I should've said FACT: RAW, CHA is good for attracting Followers not Cohorts.
We've already established that CHA measures the character's ability to lead. It also measures the character's personality and personal magnetism.INT and WIS don't.
A guy who isn't that bright or wise can surround himself with people who are much smarter and wiser than he is. A guy who isn't that charismatic probably won't.
A guy who is bright and wise ON TOP of being charismatic will attract more (and better) people to follow him. It's harder to respect someone who's less intelligent or more foolish than yourself - you don't look up to people like that.
Someone charismatic can _seem_ bright and wise, at least superficially. Sufficient interaction will dispel that notion rather quickly. Being able to herd people in the same direction (i.e. make them work together well) is leadership, and yes, that's Charisma.
Getting people to follow you loyally and trust you with their lives requires something extra (aside from a Feat :-); respect for their brains and common sense is IMO part of the package.
The attributes leave a lot of room for interpretation. Not every high CHA character is gorgeous, though appearance is part of CHA. Leadership is part of CHA, but not every high CHA character is a good leader. Of course, those taking the Leadership feat can be 'assumed' to be a good leader, and the feat bears that out, but I also think that smarter and wiser people will ALSO make for better leaders.
Being a genius, of course, doesn't make you a good leader - but I think, all else being equal, someone with INT18, CHA10 will be a better leader than someone with INT10, CHA10.
A guy who is bright and wise ON TOP of being charismatic will attract more (and better) people to follow him. It's harder to respect someone who's less intelligent or more foolish than yourself - you don't look up to people like that.
Probably, charisma is to some extent your ability to seem intelligent. Take Pumba in the Lion King for example - he doesn't seem that smart, but he's always the one that comes up with the good ideas. Timon is pretty stupid, but he's the natural leader of the two.
Getting followers due to intelligence and wisdom might take more work, too, and is perhaps best suited for actual NPC interactions. You have to prove to people that you're smart and wise. Charisma has a bigger impact on what people think of you the first time they see you, and as such, you "automatically" get followers.
A really hot and charismatic guy might have a dozen women after him at all times. Someone like me, who's pretty smart but probably has an about average charisma (and a bit below average wisdom I guess), have to work much harder to get women. I can of course use my intelligence and interest in people, but it takes more time and women don't flock to me without me doing something (NPC interactions).
EDIT: And with 18 intelligence 10 cha, you WILL be a better leader than someone with 10/10. You'll have much higher knowledge skills, and more skill points that you can spend on diplomacy and such skills. A 10/10 might have his followers and cohort, but nearly no other allies, while the 18/10 has other people that work for him. Also, you could probably do a lot more with less people - you're far better at coming up with great plans.
Leadership shouldn't be seen as the only way to get followers. See the feat as "natural leader", that you're so charismatic people follow you to death just by your charm!
Leadership shouldn't be seen as the only way to get followers.
This is, of course, an excellent point. Leadership is only one way to get followers.
Of course, some GMs love screwing with non-Leadership based minions; at least Leadership makes them explicitly loyal. This might explains some of the GM hatred for the feat itself; messing with minions bought with a feat is kind of like stealing PC gold or magic items, things GMs shouldn't do (much).
|
|
Let me guess, you work in IT or some other geek dominated world, right?
It's okay. I do too. Geek is a unique sodality, but it is hardly typical of the mainstream world.
Highly intelligent geeks typically make terrible leaders. The reason is that they end up second-guessing their people and over analyzing the problems. In the real world, a good leader doesn't have to be brilliant. He has to be able to delegate. I've never had a team lead who understood even the smallest part of what I do. But that's okay. I neither expect it from him, nor want it from him. (if he wanted to understand what I do, I'd have to teach him a bunch of stuff just so that he could first attempt to understand what I do - in fact, I'd have to explain a bunch of stuff so that he can attempt to learn the stuff required to attempt to understand what I do - neither of us has time for that) If he did take the time to learn all of that, it'd be taking time away from him doing what I want him to do - I want him to be a good leader.
To pick an example, consider Stargate the tv show. The colonel is an idiot compared to either of the two doctors on his team. But that's okay, because he's a great leader. Now, he's not a total loss wrt intelligence, I'd put him on the high end of average (about a 13 Int, maybe), but he's certainly no rocket scientist and it doesn't take long for either of the two doctors (Samantha or Jackson) to leave him babbling in the corner. From either of the two doctors' perspectives, he's barely more intelligent than cave moss. But he's got leadership ability in spades, he knows how to delegate, he trusts his team (even though he has no clue what they are talking about). Consequently, he is the leader of the premier off world team and, later, the head of the entire planet Earth's Stargate program. Like I said, despite his relative lack of intelligence, he's a great leader.
Wouldn't the geeks in your example have a low Charisma, which would give them a low Leadership score regardless of intelligence? The example he's talking about is a highly intelligent person with 'average' Charisma, not the lower kind that your stereotypical withdrawn and nerdy computer tech would have.
Let me guess, you work in IT or some other geek dominated world, right?
It's okay. I do too. Geek is a unique sodality, but it is hardly typical of the mainstream world.
Actually, I build car seats for a living. I do know a number of intelligent people, however, as roleplaying does tend to attract the type.
Highly intelligent geeks typically make terrible leaders. The reason is that they end up second-guessing their people and over analyzing the problems.
This seems more a lack of common sense than anything else. This is something I have noticed about VERY intelligent people, is that they often are too focused and lack basic common sense.
In the real world, a good leader doesn't have to be brilliant. He has to be able to delegate.
So is this ability part of Charisma, or part of Wisdom? I'd say it's the latter.
To pick an example, consider Stargate the tv show. The colonel is an idiot compared to either of the two doctors on his team. But that's okay, because he's a great leader. Now, he's not a total loss wrt intelligence, I'd put him on the high end of average (about a 13 Int, maybe), but he's certainly no rocket scientist and it doesn't take long for either of the two doctors (Samantha or Jackson) to leave him babbling in the corner. From either of the two doctors' perspectives, he's barely more intelligent than cave moss.
This is a confusion between Knowledge skills and base INT, I think. The colonel wouldn't BE a colonel if he wasn't smart (and wise). His knowledge base is entirely different, and probably a lot more practical. Nothing in the series has ever led me to believe that the colonel is dumb; far from it.
Let's pull out the A-Team instead:
Hannibal is smart, wise and charismatic
Face is fairly smart and very charismatic
B.A Barrackus is...well, sort of charismatic, in an intimidating way.
Murdock is smart and charismatic, but bat-crap crazy (low WIS)
So they're all charismatic, but Hannibal is in charge because he's the brains and sense of the operation.
|
|
Wouldn't the geeks in your example have a low Charisma, which would give them a low Leadership score regardless of intelligence? The example he's talking about is a highly intelligent person with 'average' Charisma, not the lower kind that your stereotypical withdrawn and nerdy computer tech would have.I hate the idea that "geek" == "low charisma". I think when people think of "geek" == "low charisma", what they are really thinking of are nerds. When I use the word "geek", I mean "somebody who has a deep expertise (and possibly obsession) in some (or many) competitive, non-mainstream intellectual activities".
So, a person can have a quite high charisma and still be a geek. To use that ever popular example, Vin Diesel is a very charismatic man, but is, also, a geek.
I agree, but I'm using your own words. "Highly intelligent geeks typically make terrible leaders." You also immediately follow it with "The reason is that they end up second-guessing their people and over analyzing the problems." which indicates someone with a low self-esteem, or low Charisma. You then give the Stargate guy as an example, which is also someone who seems to have a lower Charisma.
My only point was that the person above was talking about someone with a 10 Charisma and 18 Intelligence, while your only examples were someone with a high Intelligence, but low Charisma, geek, nerd, or whatever.
Wouldn't the geeks in your example have a low Charisma, which would give them a low Leadership score regardless of intelligence? The example he's talking about is a highly intelligent person with 'average' Charisma, not the lower kind that your stereotypical withdrawn and nerdy computer tech would have.I hate the idea that "geek" == "low charisma". I think when people think of "geek" == "low charisma", what they are really thinking of are nerds. When I use the word "geek", I mean "somebody who has a deep expertise (and possibly obsession) in some (or many) competitive, non-mainstream intellectual activities".
Interestingly, the English word "geek" is in swedish "nörd" (pronounced as "nerd"), while the word for "nerd" is "tönt".
|
|
I agree, but I'm using your own words. "Highly intelligent geeks typically make terrible leaders." You also immediately follow it with "The reason is that they end up second-guessing their people and over analyzing the problems." which indicates someone with a low self-esteem, or low Charisma. You then give the Stargate guy as an example, which is also someone who seems to have a lower Charisma.My only point was that the person above was talking about someone with a 10 Charisma and 18 Intelligence, while your only examples were someone with a high Intelligence, but low Charisma, geek, nerd, or whatever.
I think you are reading a couple of things into my post that I didn't intend.
"Second-guessing their people and over analyzing the problems" doesn't indicate low self-esteem - or at least it doesn't need to. It can indicate needing to do more time in analysis because they can see more possibilities than other people can.I don't think the Stargate guy has a lower CHA. I think he has a very high CHA. However, he has a much lower INT compared to the people he's leading.
I was talking about the Scientist. Whatever his name was. :)
I never said he was stupid. I said he was on the high end of average, but compared to either of the two doctors, he's as smart as cave moss.
Which is pretty much wrong - the colonel WAS smart, just not book smart. In D&D terms he's high INT, but doesn't have high ranks in Knowledge Skills. A problem solver, not a technician. Once again, people who get to the upper levels of military service are generally the smart ones. If the doctors were INT18, I'd put the colonel at INT16, he just had a different set of skills.
To give another real world example, take George W. Bush. From all accounts, he is a very likeable person - high CHA. But a LOT of people think that he is stupid and/or foolish, and that perception, right or wrong, affected his ability to lead the American people.
Look, I'm not saying that CHA should have little bearing on Leadership score. I'm just saying that INT and WIS should also have a bearing on it. I get the feeling you want CHA to be the main determinant; the problem I have with this is that CHA, by itself, doesn't have enough of a range of values on CHA bonuses (really, you'd see -2 to +8 at best). If you lumped in all the mental stats together, then you'd have a potential range of -6 to +24, which makes level less of a factor overall.
Oh, and another thing...when somebody says 'geek', I think 'guy who bites the heads off of chickens'. :-)
If players use Leadership, does that then mean the DM can give villains the Leadership feat without increasing the CR of the encounter?If players all craft magic items, does this mean that DMs can put more monsters in without increasing the CR of the encounter?
CRs aren't super-useful in 3.5, where party power can vary ENORMOUSLY. Let's keep that argument to another thread? =)
-Cross
Because my party is very powerful (level 19/mythic 8) and half of them have leadership... I give Leadership to NPC's frequently, without adjusting CR.
They often run into things that are CR 25-30 according to the rules, and curb-stomp them in a round or two. Such is high-level play.