I'm running my group through the Kingmaker adventure path, and now they want to use the leadership feat to get someone who has a positive CHA bonus (Three dwarves and a half-orc... the half-orc has the highest charisma at 10) to fill in as the Ruler.
The leadership feat, as written, doesn't say who chooses the NPC to become the cohort. My players argue that they should be able to design the NPC, but I suspect they will get someone with a CHA 16 or better, just to fill the position. I argue that I should randomly create an NPC, and they can choose to accept it or not. I would be willing to provide a, let's say, 20-percent chance per month of someone approaching them to join.
Any ideas?
|
You are the DM. It's your call. That said, in your position, I'd let the player design the cohort, subject to your veto or editing. Either way, remember that a cohort is still a NPC, not a sub-PC. Whether you let your PCs design the cohort or not, you are still the one in charge of controlling him. Don't let the players push you around, but try to do what's best, in the long run, to make things the most fun for most of the members of the group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I let the player control the cohort. It is one less thing you have to do as a DM. They also have much less of an excuse if it dies. I am also pretty sure that I can't run a character as efficiently as the creator of that character.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree with Shade on this one... A cohort is NOT NOT NOT a DM's plaything any more than an animal companion, eidolon, or familiar is. I even doubt you will even want to take on the extra homework for such a thing, don't punish the player by taking the control away from them. The normal followers on the other hand are best handled by you, as a player would rarely be well enough equipped to really take care of so many npcs.
While leadership is the most complicated piece of work to set up for a game it has several self limiting factors and with even a SOMEWHAT competent DM it won't break anything.
That being said the NPC generation is entirely up to you. Personally when my players take Leadership I let them design them using the heroic NPC (15,14,13,12,10,8) array for the cohorts and the basic NPC array (13,12,11,10,9,8) for all other followers.
It sounds like a REALLY cool idea to be honest, a puppet king leading a nation being controlled by the people who put him into power. No conspiracy theory here, this is the reality. Just depends on how well spread this unsettling knowledge will be, and to what it effect it will have on the kingdom. Sets up a LOT of cool story seeds.
I let the player control the cohort. It is one less thing you have to do as a DM. They also have much less of an excuse if it dies. I am also pretty sure that I can't run a character as efficiently as the creator of that character.
Control is not the issue. But design of the NPC is. What is to prevent the player from making a third-level Human Aristocrat with 18 Charisma?
Should I have them roll (4d6-lowest), buy (16-point), or otherwise limit the scores.
BTW, they are not intending to have their cohort adventuring with them, but to have it back in their kingdom assisting in their loyalty rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said the NPC generation is entirely up to you. Personally when my players take Leadership I let them design them using the heroic NPC (15,14,13,12,10,8) array for the cohorts and the basic NPC array (13,12,11,10,9,8) for all other followers.
Another good idea. Perhaps I'll let them do that, rather than it being random (although I, by nature, like randomness {grin})
It sounds like a REALLY cool idea to be honest, a puppet king leading a nation being controlled by the people who put him into power. No conspiracy theory here, this is the reality. Just depends on how well spread this unsettling knowledge will be, and to what it effect it will have on the kingdom. Sets up a LOT of cool story seeds.
Oh ho!! Thanks for the idea. I hadn't thought about it myself, but it could lead into various politically touchy situations.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Control is not the issue. But design of the NPC is. What is to prevent the player from making a third-level Human Aristocrat with 18 Charisma?
Should I have them roll (4d6-lowest), buy (16-point), or otherwise limit the scores.
BTW, they are not intending to have their cohort adventuring with them, but to have it back in their kingdom assisting in their loyalty rolls.
Nothing is preventing them from doing that but ... as a player I would HIGHLY hesitate to make the cohort have anything other than PC class levels, anything less significantly gimps the character comparably. You also have to keep in mind that this player IS dumping a feat on this, and only so they can trust the country in the hands of someone who is ... capable. You can trust me in saying that if this PC did NOT roll up a cohort who is in a good position (charismatically, and otherwise) to rule the country then the entire nation would suffer. Yes they choose to dump charisma for other stats but that shouldn't derail the whole campaign.
I reiterate my previous suggestion to give the cohort the Heroic NPC array.
|
|
My main point is, it's always the DM's call when in doubt. In the case of a cohort, 99% of the time I let the PCs have it their way. Occasionally, they get carried away and start abusing the cohort "Nodwick" style. That's when I take over.
And to add to the OP's inquiry, Howver you handle the design of the cohort. don't make the PCs wait months for him to show up. The PC took a feat, he should have it available right away, like any other feat.
|
|
My main point is, it's always the DM's call when in doubt. In the case of a cohort, 99% of the time I let the PCs have it their way. Occasionally, they get carried away and start abusing the cohort "Nodwick" style. That's when I take over.
And to add to the OP's inquiry, Howver you handle the design of the cohort. don't make the PCs wait months for him to show up. The PC took a feat, he should have it available right away, like any other feat.
Oh definitely! If the PC's start trying to munchkinize this guy or take advantage of you letting them do it start slowly pulling the rug out from underneath them. Maybe the king has been running around with some bad crowds when you are out slaying the enemies of the state or on diplomatic missions. He might be taken to drug use, or is running around behind the queens back with some servants. You will always have the final say but I think you should be able to find a nice balance between PC control/DM fiat.
My main point is, it's always the DM's call when in doubt. In the case of a cohort, 99% of the time I let the PCs have it their way. Occasionally, they get carried away and start abusing the cohort "Nodwick" style. That's when I take over.
And to add to the OP's inquiry, Howver you handle the design of the cohort. don't make the PCs wait months for him to show up. The PC took a feat, he should have it available right away, like any other feat.
The same with my players.
I just give fixed ability scores and PCs do with it.
I'd actually suggest that you allow them to roll stats as if they were a PC. They are already going to be of a lower level and sometimes the better stats can make the difference between life and death. It is the same issue that used to come up with animal companions and such that were lower level than the associated player class (Ranger). Hit Dice (or lack of) can be a problem. Obviously rolling may end up with lower stats but you are allowing 4d6 and dropping so it favors the roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I let the player control the cohort. It is one less thing you have to do as a DM. They also have much less of an excuse if it dies. I am also pretty sure that I can't run a character as efficiently as the creator of that character.Control is not the issue. But design of the NPC is. What is to prevent the player from making a third-level Human Aristocrat with 18 Charisma?
Should I have them roll (4d6-lowest), buy (16-point), or otherwise limit the scores.
BTW, they are not intending to have their cohort adventuring with them, but to have it back in their kingdom assisting in their loyalty rolls.
Since it is an NPC it should use NPC stats. The fact that it belongs to Player would not change that. Now if a DM creates his NPC's with a 15 point buy then it should have a 15 point buy.
What is wrong with an Arisocrat with a score of 18 in any ability?He is still several levels behind the party and poorly equipped.
Anyway 18's are over rated.
This must be a kingmaker thing. When the kingdom gets rolling they will be having to roll less than a 5 to pass the DC's. With all the bonuses they will have the 18 won't really matter that much. If you want the DC's to continue to challenge the players you will have to houserule a lot of things.
Another point is this. I think it should easier for country to exist as it gets older. The armies get bigger, the leaders have more experience, the citizen are more supportive, which all means a stronger foundation. I am sure it takes a lot more to topple us than it would 200 years ago.
Giving one NPC and 18 is not going to break the game. If he is wasting a feat on leadership instead of befriending available NPC's then let him do so. You are lucky that all he is asking for is an aristocrat. I would definitely have tried for a sorcerer or bard myself. Maybe a paladin or cleric would have been nice also.
hmmm...
Tastes like lazy.
I would be adverse to the players skipping the KING portion of KingMAKER.
Cohorts (regardless of *how* you generate them) are not supposed to be the Highlight of the campaign. Does this would-be NPC directly affect the party income? (ie, NOC rolls a die and we get this much cash! *woot*!) Does he absolve the party of the worry of running their own kingdom? (NPC rolls good so we don't have a famine this week!) Does he resolve any border disputes, banditry, monster incursions and such with a *clatter* roll of the die?
If that was my players' plan, I would probably run a different campaign. Not because I would be worried by them 'getting around' the rules, but because they are clearly not interested in running a Kingdom. I'd look for a campaign style they wanted :)
GNOME
I have a player in my Kingmaker campaign who also plans on taking Leadership next level. Of course, in my game they already have a ruler with 20 CHA so that isn't an issue.
What I'm planning on doing is have the PC give me a (fluff only)description of the type of cohort they're looking for. I would then create a 15 point-buy (which is what the players used) character of the appropriate level which satisfies the description. I love making up characters with interesting personalities and backgrounds so this isn't really a burden on me at all.
During game sessions, I'll probably have the player control him. I would, of course, step in if the cohort starts doing things against his nature. We'll see how it goes.
hmmm...
Tastes like lazy.
I would be adverse to the players skipping the KING portion of KingMAKER.
Cohorts (regardless of *how* you generate them) are not supposed to be the Highlight of the campaign. Does this would-be NPC directly affect the party income? (ie, NOC rolls a die and we get this much cash! *woot*!) Does he absolve the party of the worry of running their own kingdom? (NPC rolls good so we don't have a famine this week!) Does he resolve any border disputes, banditry, monster incursions and such with a *clatter* roll of the die?
If that was my players' plan, I would probably run a different campaign. Not because I would be worried by them 'getting around' the rules, but because they are clearly not interested in running a Kingdom. I'd look for a campaign style they wanted :)
GNOME
We don't really know if it is the king. It could be the diplomat(incorrect name). If it was the king I would be happy to do it. They would think twice about who they put in charge if he were to try to take over the kingdom. He could believe he is doing things for the party's benefit, whether they see it that way or not. Even NPC's taken with the leadership feat have their own emotions and opinions.
My main point is, it's always the DM's call when in doubt. In the case of a cohort, 99% of the time I let the PCs have it their way. Occasionally, they get carried away and start abusing the cohort "Nodwick" style. That's when I take over.
This.
Step away from the evil DM, slowly. Find yourself a good, nice DM.
Done?
Good.
Ok, so with our new nice DM we can let the players request actions from animal companions/familiars/cohorts and the DM decides how they respond and/or how much control is needed (if at all).
For example, we often simply nod and let the player coordinate the cohorts' actions out of combat/during down time.
However, for complex actions and during combat we demand the player puts some effort into RP'ing their ability to coordinate their assets.
::
Regarding generation o' stats: Really, whatever floats ya boat o_o
Personally I'd set up audition with four judges and a studio audience...
My main point is, it's always the DM's call when in doubt. In the case of a cohort, 99% of the time I let the PCs have it their way. Occasionally, they get carried away and start abusing the cohort "Nodwick" style. That's when I take over.
This.
Step away from the evil DM, slowly. Find yourself a good, nice DM.
Done?
Darn it my plans are foiled. If I had a fist I would shake it.
DM controls RP of the cohort and has veto power over the construction of the cohort's stats.
|
|
I tend to work jointly with my players on these issues. It's my job as a GM to challenge them, but not make it impossible for them to reach their dreams (AKA making the game fun). So if they want a munchkinized cohort, they may have to jump through some hoops to get it, depending on the situation, in the end they'll have earned it and feel much more appreciative of their new minion. Who in mechanical terms is controlled by my players, but thoughts, goals, and etc are still my realm.
| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?
Darn it my plans are foiled. If I had a fist I would shake it.My main point is, it's always the DM's call when in doubt. In the case of a cohort, 99% of the time I let the PCs have it their way. Occasionally, they get carried away and start abusing the cohort "Nodwick" style. That's when I take over.
This.
Step away from the evil DM, slowly. Find yourself a good, nice DM.
Done?
You could always rattle your jaw bone menacingly!
Warith, while I agree that you could do that (emphasize the Cohort's individual personality and drive) my point was that the players do not seem at all interested in building/running a kingdom. :)
Kind of like the difference between the computer game Civilization and Starcraft: two excellent games, but totally different appeal. Find something that appeals to the players.
And, in regards to Mr Reynolds post and Leadership... Yes and no. I am not going to give a Player the option of *ANY* cohort they like. The player should make the cohort, but leave Veto rights for the DM. Most vetos should be based on lack of convincing story. My Rock Smart Barb convinces the Uber Smart Wizard to *follow* him... Where that same Barb may convince a Bard to accompany him: think of the tales about "Fast Like Rock! Smart Like Tree!" :)
And that is the 'danger' of Leadership: where do you draw the line? Players should run the Cohort though. The Player should be entrusted to run the Cohort 'accurately' based on personality and skills. Leadership is an outstanding feat and when used by good players and GMs can create some memorable RP events. And that is the goal ;)
(Recently my buddy's Dwarven Druid cast Awaken on his Cheetah Companion. Steve, the Cheetah has corrected everyone: She is The Lady Stephanie of Solku. She calls the Dwarf, "Little Dwarf-Man"... good times indeed :) )
|
They would think twice about who they put in charge if he were to try to take over the kingdom. He could believe he is doing things for the party's benefit, whether they see it that way or not. Even NPC's taken with the leadership feat have their own emotions and opinions.
Anyone else having flashbacks to the 'Lord Gilead' storylines from KODT?
Kind of like the difference between the computer game Civilization..
Are we talking Civ II?
..coz if we are, GET IN HERE AND HAVE A DRINK ON ME!
In working up rules and things for more freeform stand alone games I came to decision on this guide line for secondary characters, which and also apply to cohorts.
• If you pick from one my existing "helpful" NPCs that use a PC power stat block then you get the cohort at PC stats/gear.
• If you want to build your own it uses NPC stats/gear. (lesser value point buy)
I am a generous GM who still thinks there should be certain limits because these limits make things more enjoyable for me and probably the majority of my players (and if you're the odd one out, you'll have to adapt). So this is what I'd do:
I would let the PC who took the feat create the cohort. There would be some guidelines and limitations, of course, but that goes for PCs as well.
I'd use a purchase system one step down from what the PCs have, because the cohort isn't quite as heroic as the PCs, not quite as exceptional. If they want to use that to have a very, very pretty character who has little else going for them, that's their choice. (I use purchase for PCs, too, because I think naked randomness has no place in character creation)
The race and class(es) would be mostly free, though of course the end result must make sense. That rules out someone with as many classes as levels, super-exotic races, and most PrCs (not that they're much in demand these days, but if they do want one, it has to make sense).
The cohort would get some starting funds (which would have to be spent sensibly, i.e. not everything on one item and so forth), but afterwards, it's either the player's responsibility to equip that character, or he gets a partial share of the loot (but the party has to agree unanimously to the latter).
The cohort would join the party at the time the player takes the feat (give or take a day or two maybe, since they won't turn up in the middle of the dungeon when they've just levelled up).
The player would get to decide the cohort's character (i.e. what his views on things are and how he behaves) and control his actions in combat - again, within reason. This usually doesn't come up, but if the player acts crazy, I as the GM will step in.
Out of combat, I'd probably take over the cohort myself, at least when it's required: The player still gets to control actions like "Connie the cohort will now, as my squire, set up camp for me." or "Karl the cohort gets up in the morning and prepares his spells", but when there are interactions between the PCs and the cohort, I'd probably play the cohort's part (mainly because the PC would otherwise talk to himself, which is a bit weird and also the GM's prerogative ;-))
When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?
I would argue that these are different. In game, when a PC takes Weapon Focus, they are not suddenly deciding what weapon to focus upon, but they have been working on themselves and now get the benefit. Similarly for when an animal companion gains a new feat.
A familiar is a magical beast. Thus, the PC "creates" it at the time of getting the familiar.
Now, I could argue that the PC has been considering various folk all along, and only when the Leadership Feat is taken does it take affect (similar to how I described Weapon Focus above). But, isn't a cohort more of a person who offers their services to the PC, rather than a person whom the PC selects out of a crowd?
If it is the second (and I could understand a good argument for that), then I fully agree. And, the cohort can attach itself to the PC immediately upon taking the feat.
If it is the first, then the innate capabilities (that is, stats) of the cohort will be more limited and it might take some time to get the cohort attached to the PC even after the PC identifies a good prospect.
As far as the stats of the cohort, I like using the heroic NPC or choosing them randomly (4d6-lowest). If the player can choose whatever stats they want, what prevents them from munchkining its stats. Oh, you could say the DM can veto that, but where does the DM draw the line?
DM controls RP of the cohort and has veto power over the construction of the cohort's stats.
The DM can, but there is no role that says he has too. The easiest and most common approach is to let the player do it until things get out of hand. I would also advise discussing what is out of hand before you let him take the feat.
Warith, while I agree that you could do that (emphasize the Cohort's individual personality and drive) my point was that the players do not seem at all interested in building/running a kingdom. :)
Kind of like the difference between the computer game Civilization and Starcraft: two excellent games, but totally different appeal. Find something that appeals to the players.
And, in regards to Mr Reynolds post and Leadership... Yes and no. I am not going to give a Player the option of *ANY* cohort they like. The player should make the cohort, but leave Veto rights for the DM. Most vetos should be based on lack of convincing story. My Rock Smart Barb convinces the Uber Smart Wizard to *follow* him... Where that same Barb may convince a Bard to accompany him: think of the tales about "Fast Like Rock! Smart Like Tree!" :)
And that is the 'danger' of Leadership: where do you draw the line? Players should run the Cohort though. The Player should be entrusted to run the Cohort 'accurately' based on personality and skills. Leadership is an outstanding feat and when used by good players and GMs can create some memorable RP events. And that is the goal ;)
(Recently my buddy's Dwarven Druid cast Awaken on his Cheetah Companion. Steve, the Cheetah has corrected everyone: She is The Lady Stephanie of Solku. She calls the Dwarf, "Little Dwarf-Man"... good times indeed :) )
If they don't want to do the kingdom building part then hand-wave it away. It is the intent for them to build the kingdom, but the adventure is fun either way.
The DM already has veto rights. Why would a wizard not follow a barbarian? Tribes have Shamans that stand behind the barbarian warlord/leader. They are wiser than the barbarian at times, and some are smarter. I don't know how low a barbarian's int has to be to be rock smart, but if it is below an 8 I would expect him to play it as such. In any event maybe the NPC thinks the dumb barbarian is a great warrior, but also "realizes" he needs to be looked after in other aspects, and acts as an adviser.As I always say, "You can fluff almost anything to make sense. You just need the imagination to do so."
You can always ask the player to write up a short backstory for the cohort, problem solved. Now you will ask me what if he is not RP'ing the cohort. Well my answer is this most players either RP or they don't so if he is not RP'ing the cohort he is probably not RP'ing his main character either. Remember not all of us RP well. Some are not comfortable with it. It took me a while to grow into it. I don't think it would have been fair to deny me mechanical benefits.
When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?
I would argue that these are different. In game, when a PC takes Weapon Focus, they are not suddenly deciding what weapon to focus upon, but they have been working on themselves and now get the benefit. Similarly for when an animal companion gains a new feat.
A familiar is a magical beast. Thus, the PC "creates" it at the time of getting the familiar.
Now, I could argue that the PC has been considering various folk all along, and only when the Leadership Feat is taken does it take affect (similar to how I described Weapon Focus above). But, isn't a cohort more of a person who offers their services to the PC, rather than a person whom the PC selects out of a crowd?
If it is the second (and I could understand a good argument for that), then I fully agree. And, the cohort can attach itself to the PC immediately upon taking the feat.
If it is the first, then the innate capabilities (that is, stats) of the cohort will be more limited and it might take some time to get the cohort attached to the PC even after the PC identifies a good prospect.
As far as the stats of the cohort, I like using the heroic NPC or choosing them randomly (4d6-lowest). If the player can choose whatever stats they want, what prevents them from munchkining its stats. Oh, you could say the DM can veto that, but where does the DM draw the line?
Most cohorts are friends are someone who idolizes the PC. As for the munchkin thing I don't think most players are munchkins and it is bad thing to base a rule on nonstandard behavior. If you don't trust a player it is better not to game with them if possible.
What do you mean by choosing whatever stats they want? That is pretty wide open. Not even PC's get whatever stats they want. If they did a lot of characters would be floating 18's across the board.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
..
...
....
.....
Cohort
Salary: None/Nonnegotiable
Contact: Your humble, all-powerful leader.
It's also worth considering that making the cohort the ruler of the kingdom and not taking him adventuring could be rather dangerous. The cohort likely won't be earning much experience in this scenario and by the end of the campaign will be a pretty weak ruler compared to the power of the PC's. This weak leadership could leave the kingdom looking more and more tempting to outside interests.
A quick question though. Are the PC's simply not interested in running a kingdom, or is it that they just don't feel they have the charisma and want to install a puppet ruler while they are still the true rulers of the land? If it's the former you could always bypass Leadership entirely and just create an NPC ally to do the job...
Oh, it is definitely that they don't have the charisma. CHA stats are 5, 7, 8, and 10.
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.
This does not say they have go adventuring with the party in order to gain XP. Though, I could make that rule...
Cohort
Must be willing to accept orders and acknowledge my awe-inspiring awesomeness on command. Experience with carrying multiple heavy objects an advantage. Salary: None/Nonnegotiable
Contact: Your humble, all-powerful leader.
Most cohorts are friends are someone who idolizes the PC. As for the munchkin thing I don't think most players are munchkins and it is bad thing to base a rule on nonstandard behavior. If you...When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?
I would argue that these are different. In game, when a PC takes Weapon Focus, they are not suddenly deciding what weapon to focus upon, but they have been working on themselves and now get the benefit. Similarly for when an animal companion gains a new feat.
A familiar is a magical beast. Thus, the PC "creates" it at the time of getting the familiar.
Now, I could argue that the PC has been considering various folk all along, and only when the Leadership Feat is taken does it take affect (similar to how I described Weapon Focus above). But, isn't a cohort more of a person who offers their services to the PC, rather than a person whom the PC selects out of a crowd?
If it is the second (and I could understand a good argument for that), then I fully agree. And, the cohort can attach itself to the PC immediately upon taking the feat.
If it is the first, then the innate capabilities (that is, stats) of the cohort will be more limited and it might take some time to get the cohort attached to the PC even after the PC identifies a good prospect.
As far as the stats of the cohort, I like using the heroic NPC or choosing them randomly (4d6-lowest). If the player can choose whatever stats they want, what prevents them from munchkining its stats. Oh, you could say the DM can veto that, but where does the DM draw the line?
edit:That "are" should be "or".
|
When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?
Sean, I'd like to humbly disagree with you (only a little though). I think that Leadership is different enough to warrant special attention. In all the cases of PCs taking Leadership that I've seen, the player has created a one-dimensional cohort that is min-maxed for a very specific purpose. Usually it's a cleric who's good for nothing but healing and making potions or other items for the PCs. And of course, the cardboard cutout cleric asks for no compensation whatsoever for these services. Alternatively, the cohort is a dumb-as-rocks fighter who acts as a meatshield/trapspringer for a wizard. And since the cohort has no personality, he has no qualms about throwing away his life to protect his master.
Leadership is very powerful - it essentially gives you two characters to play.
So, yes, the player should be able to design his cohort. But the GM needs to be mindful of how the player is using the cohort. For example, how many GMs actually require a ranger or druid to make Handle Animal checks, or keep track of what tricks an animal companion knows? None that I've ever seen. Consequently, the animal copanions in the games I've been in have been more powerful than they should have been.
Side note: How to drive your GM crazy: druid/summoner with Leadership.
This is how I run with Leadership in my group (3.5). It works for us:
PC tells me in general terms what kind of cohort he is trying to attract. e.g. Archer, Grappler, Stealth-guy, etc.
I then create the cohort using npc stats. I try to make a useful, but not overly powerful character. I try to give the PC a cohort with class levels that the player has never played before. For example, in my current campaign, a player asked for an archer type guy. He got a warlock/sorceror/eldritch theurge that specialises in ranged touch spells and attaching AoE's on his eldritch blasts. Another player wanted a buffer and got a giant eagle Bard.
I make sure that I work with the player to make sure that they get a cohort that is fun for them to play.
After creation, the player controls the cohort and is free to advance them as they so choose.
It might not work for every group, but so far not any complaints for ours.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, yes, the player should be able to design his cohort.
Then we agree.
I never said the GM shouldn't be involved. I'm just saying the PC is spending a resource--a feat--and should get to make the decisions about that resource. If you create a potion-making cleric cohort, that's fine, he's unavailable for adventuring much of the time, and it's not like the PC couldn't have taken Brew Potion on his own. If he makes a meat-shield fighter, and that fighter dies (which, given the 2-levels-lower limit, isn't a surprise), then that dings the character's leadership score (as does the "moves around a lot" penalty, and others).
Your point about Handle Animal is an excellent one--there are brakes in the game to keep some things from getting out of control, and if the GM doesn't use those brakes, it's his fault.
Side note: How to drive your GM crazy: druid/summoner with Leadership.
That is a lot of bookkeeping. After playing a druid, and having to track the druid, the companion, and the summons I doubt I will do it again. I had fun, and it is an awesome class, but it is a good amount of things to track. As a DM I would not mind if the player did it as long as I knew he was capable of doing it efficiently.
|
|
So, yes, the player should be able to design his cohort.Then we agree.
Yeah, I realized that about halfway through writing my post, but I was already committed. :-p
Your point about Handle Animal is an excellent one--there are brakes in the game to keep some things from getting out of control, and if the GM doesn't use those brakes, it's his fault.
To clarify my earlier post - this is precisely the problem in my experiences. Leadership scores and Handle Animal checks are extra effort, time, and bookkeeping, and many GMs and players handwave them, which just unbalances the ability.
What stops a DM from making your cohort a commoner with all 8's?
For me, the players can decide to make their own character entirely or choose one of the many NPCs that tend to occur in the games I play in (We like our parties having a lot of friends :B). In the cases of the already existing NPCs, they're allowed to restat them so long as they're the same general "character." For cases where they make their own, there needs to be a reason or explanation they're a cohort now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What stops a DM from making your cohort a commoner with all 8's?
....or for that matter, stabbing you in the face with something sharp and pointy?
Why do we continue to assume that every DM is going to screw players over?
Can we not attribute some common sense to the player?
No rule set is going to stop a DM being a jerk.
If the DM is a jerk then ask yourself - why are you playing a game with a jerk?
Find a nice DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I allow the players to design their cohorts, but I limit them to NPC classes. It takes the feat down a notch but can still be quite useful.
What stops a DM from making your cohort a commoner with all 8's?
....or for that matter, stabbing you in the face with something sharp and pointy?
Why do we continue to assume that every DM is going to screw players over?
Can we not attribute some common sense to the player?
No rule set is going to stop a DM being a jerk.
If the DM is a jerk then ask yourself - why are you playing a game with a jerk?
Find a nice DM.
If we're assuming all players are terrible munchkins...
If we're assuming all players are terrible munchkins...What stops a DM from making your cohort a commoner with all 8's?
....or for that matter, stabbing you in the face with something sharp and pointy?
Why do we continue to assume that every DM is going to screw players over?
Can we not attribute some common sense to the player?
No rule set is going to stop a DM being a jerk.
If the DM is a jerk then ask yourself - why are you playing a game with a jerk?
Find a nice DM.
..then their nice DM needs to thump them more! :)