Do most DMs just hand the player the character sheet of their cohort when they pick up the leadership feat? That's the way I have seen it done in the past but my player just picked up leadership and I'm considering keeping the sheet. I've told the player in rough terms all the cohorts skills and abilites and still plan on letting the player roll all the dice. The only reason I hesitate on give the player the sheet is I what it to be a little less metagaming/number cruching when asking the cohort to do things. It feel a little more mysterious and organic I guess not knowing the exact number of this person who follows you around. Does that sound worth it or too heavy handed?
Do most DMs just hand the player the character sheet of their cohort when they pick up the leadership feat? That's the way I have seen it done in the past but my player just picked up leadership and I'm considering keeping the sheet. I've told the player in rough terms all the cohorts skills and abilites and still plan on letting the player roll all the dice. The only reason I hesitate on give the player the sheet is I what it to be a little less metagaming/number cruching when asking the cohort to do things. It feel a little more mysterious and organic I guess not knowing the exact number of this person who follows you around. Does that sound worth it or too heavy handed?
That all depends on how long you really want to juggle running your campaign and keeping tabs on this cohort. I've played under several DM's who tried something very similar, and after a few weeks of them keep the cohort sheet they either completely forgot about the cohort or just got tired of keeping track of it.
The worst instance was one campaign as a player, I had a cleric cohort. The party had no dedicated healer, so that's why I chose a cleric. The DM had even let me roll up the character and buy equipment, but decided he was going to keep the sheet, same as you, as to not be too meta-gamey. After a week or two of trying to keep track of what was already a very complex campaign, he had disregarded many of my cohorts items(which I used my own PC's gold to buy), never updated her spells for the day, and just generally kept very poor track of what this character was doing. I wanted a versatile cleric, and all he ran was a healbot. He had the best of intentions, but eventually my cohort became too much of a distraction for him and soured the game a little bit. YMMV.
So, ask yourself, how involved do you want to be with this cohort? Having your player ask you what they can and cannot do multiple times per session is going to detract from the game, and it will take time away from the other players. Essentially, you are making up another NPC you have to keep track of, on top of everything you are already keeping track of. Maybe keep the sheet the first couple sessions, but as your player gets used to the cohort, it's bonuses and abilities will be better known and I would suggest, at that point, handing it back to the player.
|
They way my group does it is this. The PC takes the feat, then RP's looking for a cohort or one of the existing NPC's in the campaign becomes one. Then the GM and player get together and make the character sheet. In combat the player plays the Cohort, though the GM can over rule if they feel the player is making the cohort do a action they really wouldn't do. In most social situations the GM plays the Cohort.
|
I don't have a problem with a player keeping/maintaining his cohort's character sheet, but there is a clear understanding that, I, as the DM, have veto power over any action the player decides to take with that cohort.
If the player tries to use or abuse the NPC in a way that no sane individual would tolerate (a la Knobby-Foot from Knights of the Dinner Table), I will step in. Otherwise, I let the player handle matters.
My experience is similar to the other posters in this thread. As a DM, I have a hard enough time keeping track of all *my* NPCs, let alone the PC's NPCs. When someone in the party took leadership, I asked him what kind of follower he wanted to look for, then created a few characters and let him pick which one he wanted. Honestly, I think it worked out better that way, since my ideas were very different that what the player would have made, so he ended up with a fun secondary character to play. For the most part I'll let him do what he wants with the cohort, but I'll step in occasionally and have the cohort do something differently (for example, I'll pick what class he chooses upon leveling, but leave the other decisions to the PCs).
I play the cohorts as DM. After all, they are NPCs. This works out OK both for me and my players.
I always let the PC's control the cohorts in full and my reasoning is the GM controls the NPC's which in turn control there hirelings, cohorts, monsters and thralls. I already have way to much on my plate (mostly at higher level) anyway, and the way I look at it is they spend the time making them, just let them enjoy them, for its really about everone just having fun.
|
|
I let my PC's make, control, kill the cohort as long as it makes sense that the cohort would follow the PC.
Like no clerics of Norgorber following a paladin of Iomedae just so the PC can get away with doing some unscrupulous things.
But a sorcerer who chooses to follow a wizard or a druid of Erastil who follows a cleric of Erastil is okay in my book.
I give the cohort to the player to run and control in combat, as it's too hard for me to operate the cohort and the NPC enemies, and besides the cohort is likely to follow the leader's commands most of the time anyway.
However, if there is a piece of information that the cohort should have that the player wouldn't know, or if the PC wants to have a conversation, then I RP the cohort as I would an NPC.