Greetings again:
So, I recently took the Leadership feat in our Kingmaker game to mitigate some of the horrible shortcomings of our party, not to mention the terrible build that I put in for my character. Oh, I love playing this character, but he sure doesn't do well out in the field. He's far more a brilliant politician and city planner than an awesome Eldritch Knight. Regardless, he's the boss of the kingdom, and wants to make sure things are going his way.
So, I have a cohort and some followers. My GM helped me roll up an Inquisitor bodyguard-in-training (who is more awesome than my main character), and a couple of warrior "squires" who will not be advancing anytime soon. With that, though, it's like they're utterly invisible to the two other players at the table.
How do you guys play cohorts/followers and the like? I don't mind the invisible part, really, but it is kind of awkward when I say, "Oh, and what about Baya? It's her turn in initiative order..." "Huh? Oh, riiiight."
Should a GM take a more active role in playing the character(s) out? Do you let your PCs play their cohorts? So maybe I'm feeling a little awkward... Well, at least I know my ruling council is faithful. :)
How do you guys play cohorts/followers and the like? I don't mind the invisible part, really, but it is kind of awkward when I say, "Oh, and what about Baya? It's her turn in initiative order..." "Huh? Oh, riiiight."
Should a GM take a more active role in playing the character(s) out? Do you let your PCs play their cohorts? So maybe I'm feeling a little awkward... Well, at least I know my ruling council is faithful. :)
In every game I have run and played in (although that's mostly because it's either I or one other friend of mine GMing, and we have been the ones to teach our gaming groups how to GM) cohorts and followers are NPCs played by, statted out, and kept by the GM. The only time where the player takes control is during combat - and that's only because the GM typically has fifteen other things to run.
It sounds to me like the problem is the invisibility. If you don't actively remind everyone that the cohorts are there, and I mean that in and out of the battlefield, then they're going to forget they exist, just like a Wizard character and a Wizard's GM can forget that the familiar exists. Which, in turn, deprives you of a feat.
I'd have a sit down with your GM and ask if he has a problem with you taking the Leadership feat. (He shouldn't.) Give him full control of the cohort off combat - ask the GM how the cohort acts, reacts, and is spending his day. (The only limitation to this action is that the feat defines the cohort as being "faithful".) Or, if the GM isn't comfortable playing your cohort, then feel free to play your cohort as if it were a second PC. (I wouldn't abuse this too much because it might anger the other players, but I'd definitely say something at least once an hour to remind people that they're there. I would even have the cohort interact with the other PCs - no reason for him to hang onto just your character's every word and deed, after all, he's a friend, not a sycophant.)
In every game I have run and played in (although that's mostly because it's either I or one other friend of mine GMing, and we have been the ones to teach our gaming groups how to GM) cohorts and followers are NPCs played by, statted out, and kept by the GM. The only time where the player takes control is during combat - and that's only because the GM typically has fifteen other things to run.
I have done this in the past, as well. A few things I recommend...
For the DM: Create simple combat cards for the NPCs you'll be handing out when combat kicks off (minimum detail and nothing that gives away things the players shouldn't know about the NPC in question). On the back of the card put a list of normal acceptable strategies in-character for the NPC and list of 'Do-nots' for the NPC, as well. There doesn't need to be a lot of detail to establish a few usual, albeit simple in-character activities for the NPC in question.
For the player: The onus is on the player to incorporate their NPC into roleplay. The DM will have so many things on his or her plate they might often not remember to include reactions or bits of dialog for every cohort, but if the player prompts them or gives them a window by saying "I'll go off to scout the perimeter of the camp while gathering firewood and I'll drag Droga the Lame along with me." By doing so when you can, you're giving the DM at least a prompt for a reaction on the part of the NPC. As long as this isn't overdone it will not annoy any fellow players or the DM (too much of this or harping on NPC only interaction can be seen by some as monopolizing game time but YMMV).
|
It sounds to me like the problem is the invisibility. If you don't actively remind everyone that the cohorts are there, and I mean that in and out of the battlefield, then they're going to forget they exist, just like a Wizard character and a Wizard's GM can forget that the familiar exists. Which, in turn, deprives you of a feat.
I don't use the Leadership feat, for various reasons, but that's because I already give the PCs the benefits of allied NPCs, whenever it would make sense for them to meet up and work together.
And there are times (especially for the low-level henchmen) when they really shouldn't be in the line of fire, since anything that challenges the PCs would kill them without a sweat. These guys really should be working behind the scenes, running the PCs estates, gathering info, etc.These guys should have lives of their own, and responsibilities, which don't include acting as suicidal meat-shields.
Tiny Tim isn't going to get his new crutches if Corporal Cratchit throws himself down a dragon's gullet, for the benefit of a bunch of ungrateful tomb-robbers with ten times his hp.
These characters don't always have to accompany them everywhere they go, like a lost puppy, but there are lots of ways they can smooth the PCs' progress, by doing what they're best suited at.
So, when the PCs go back through a village they've helped in the past, they get free board, get their gear mended, by the inn staff. OK, that's small potatos, that can be handwaved.
But what about the ostler's son, who's all grown up now, and wants to act as a squire for the knight, and help care for the family's horse he now rides? What about the potion vendor, who gives them a 'mates rates' discount, in thanks for saving his livelihood during the orc raids? What about their old watch captain, who agrees to release ten of his men to help the PCs bust some cultists' lair? The wizard's old schoolteacher, who happily trades spells with his favourite ex-pupil?
All these are the same benefits as would be granted by the Leadership feat (cohort, henchmen, cheap crafting), without officially and permanently tying any of these NPCs to the PCs apron strings, nor forcing them to be mindless serfs.
And to be fair, one of the most common (ab)uses of Leadership was always to get a crafter NPC, who stayed at home, cranking out shiny bling lewt for their master. Especially in 3.5, when crafting cost xp, which the cohort never tracked. This way, they can still trade unwanted items and commission new gear, I just cut the crap.
The PCs show, by their actions, which NPCs they're interested in, and when their services are needed, so it shouldn't seem forced, the way it would if these NPCs were to skip town and run off into the wilderness with them, for the rest of their (short) lives, as per the RAW.
|
|
One thing I maybe didn't make clear above, is that another advantage of giving the PCs the virtual benefits of having cohorts and henchmen, wherever they may roam; it doesn't have to be the same NPCs every time.
As long as they are in good standing with the public and/or the authorities, there's no reason they can't requisition or commandeer goods, services or manpower from whoever's available.
It doesn't always have to be the same dozen soldiers, nor do they have to drag a baggage train round the country.
This doesn't release them from their responsibilities to look after them; if they keep borrowing troops and getting them killed, their requests will soon get lost or ignored, just as in the RAW for reducing the Leadership score when attracting replacements for dead henchmen.
"Oh, it's you again. Errr... all my men are busy right now. Doing...stuff."
Soon, all they'll find available are Sergeant Wilson, Corporal Jones and Private Godfrey.
Thanks everyone for your responses. It's very much appreciated.
I took the Leadership feat for a couple reasons. For one, this is Kingmaker, and it's nice to have a cabinet you can trust. Not to mention said "friend" in every town to at least hook us up with lodgings while we deal with roaming threats to the burgeoning kingdom. The "king" shouldn't be expecting everything for free just because he's, well, king. Having some decent allies to spare a gold piece or two is great. Although even then, my character tends to "tip" those that give him a place to stay for the night.
The other reason that I've taken the feat is to shake up the party a bit. Not the GM, but the other PCs. We've been handled with kit gloves for years that actually doing a published Adventure Path is the most brutal thing we've ever done. Seriously, I just learned about hirelings, something available since level 1! Plus, we're only a party of 3, and just about every encounter stomps us into the ground. And that's even WITH the GM adjusting things a bit.
All this, I'm sure, is easily done without the feat.
It's just that, well, we ARE the idiot party people come to these forums and crack jokes/complain about. We have done things so stupidly and illogically, it's a wonder how we all got masters degrees. I'm trying to change that, but I am meeting with some resistance from fellow players. One guy gets agitated that I want to take two minutes to flip through the equipment section and buy stuff that would help us on our NEXT outing... it's all strange.
I don't use the Leadership feat, for various reasons, but that's because I already give the PCs the benefits of allied NPCs, whenever it would make sense for them to meet up and work together.
I have non-cohort NPCs join the party all the time. As you said, when it makes sense for them to work together.
But I don't disallow my PCs access to the Leadership feat. What the Leadership feat does IMCs is give the player a character they know at least won't betray them, and who'll be looking out for their best interest. They're not toadies, flunkies, or sycophants - unless that's part of the character's concept anyway - they're fully bore out NPCs. Yes, it's one more pain in the ass thing for me to GM and control, but because it's always made my games better - and my player's investment in the game world beyond their character sheets more solid - it's never been a problem for me.
Leadership is probably the most flexible and dramatic ability in all of Pathfinder. It's therefore the most interesting and most abusable.
.
With that, though, it's like they're utterly invisible to the two other players at the table.
My rule of them for NPC party members is that they should never take more than 1/2 a share of the time/attention at the table. Right now it sounds like your NPC is getting about 1/100, so you have plenty of space to attract more attention without causing trouble.
.
Should a GM take a more active role in playing the character(s) out? Do you let your PCs play their cohorts?
I've used both methods, GM-NPC and Player-NPC. I find that each method is good in the right situation.
For a role-playing intensive game (more conversation, less fights) I prefer to avoid having the players ever control more than their one character. A lot of fun role-playing can be done between the NPC and the characters, and intensity can be lost if any player has to change personalities periodically.
For a tactics intensive game, which Pathfinder usually is (more fights, less conversation) I prefer to let the players control their followers. It speeds up play, and reduces the amount of work I have to do as the GM.