I find this is one of those feats DMs hate. I can understand why, but at the same time, why would it be in the base Dnd player hand books if it was so unbalanced?
The prospect of another "intelligent" hero, as appose to an animal, with access to hero classes means he is far more able then any animal, even with 2 levels less. Not to mention the other followers, which can be handled with great cleave from some creatures :p .
I've seen some DMs handle it where they couldn't have any spell caster cohorts, so they where just stuck to marshal characters. Others where that the DM made the character, and the only say the player had was just what class the cohort was going to be.
I know gold is the real reason this is suppose to be balanced, but a lot of DMs don't even account for gold in their campaign.
So why is this balanced, or unbalance, and what makes it one way or the other.
WBL? What does that mean?
WBL? What does that mean?
Wealth By Level. If you look in Gamemastering section in the core rule book, you'll see a table that gives a guideline on how much wealth a character should have.
Cohorts come equipped, but followers do not. The leader has to buy their equipment if he wants anything other than basic things. Also, the Cohort is equipped as an NPC, not a PC, of his level (which means less equipment).
Part of what balances out cohorts is that most PCs equip their cohorts better than they come with, to make them more effective.
Yes leadership is broken. But I think it is more a matter of context. If a DM is prepared for leadership and understands how it will change the campaign then it should still be somewhat ok.
Though, if you want an easy example of leadership being broken. Pick an alchemist cohort and have him take the infusion discovery early. Then you will have all the semi free disposable potions you could ever want every day.
No more broken than taking a cleric cohort, or druid cohort (who comes with AC), or a sorcerer, oracle, magus, insert spellcasting class of your choice.
Leadership is a tradition from way back in the 1st edition days (henchmen and hirelings) so it would make sense to put it in the base core book, same with the magic missile spell and some higher level illusion spells that really do not fit in their balance range well.
What I use for my (very rough) balance guide is what is allowed in pathfinder organized play (leadership is not allowed). My perspective of the game is that it is shared social entertainment and anything that gives a player consistent extra "time to shine" time in relation to the other characters is unbalanced. Same thing goes with things that weaken them so much they really cannot contribute.
A cohort does not have to give the person more time to shine. Quite often, in my games at least, people take leadership in order to get a cohort and the followers for non-combat RP stuff.
An example, in the game I'm currently in, I'm working toward getting a cohort who's a street urchin I've been helping (so has the rest of the group). I go out of the way to explain things to him, to give him jobs to do (and pay him), and give his street friends jobs. When I hit level 7, I'll ask the GM to take him on as a cohort, and then the other street kids as my 'followers'. That'll give me a huge resource in the town we are based out of. I'll have a built in information network, and as the followers grow (when I level), they will gradually become members of the rangers guild, the wizards guild, the city guard, the merchant's guild, etc. So I'll have 'followers' in each and every important bit of the city and it's environs. That gives me a lot of pull, but it's not something that's going to help me in Combat. Once the kid is a cohort, and he's bumping up in levels with me, I can leave him in charge of our growing mercantile empire we're building, so we can adventure and reap the rewards of several shops.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I see leadership as a great feat for smaller parties that need an extra member to cover a vital role. I play in a large group where having a couple of extra PCs to look after slows down combat unnecessarily, we use a homebrewed version of the feat which doesn't provide a cohort, but instead allows party members to build bases in cities and exercise political power. The bases cost 2000g to start with and gradually increase in size (this can be expedited by putting in more gold).
The PC can have their followers source free items, the number and power of which go up depending on the size of a stronghold (so a small stronghold might be able to get a CL1 item once a month, whereas a much larger stronghold could get a CL8 item and multiple CL1-3 items in that same time). We find that's it's a great feat for roleplaying and helps increase the feeling that the PCs are having an impact on their world.
You miss the point. If you want to benefit from their buffs, other spellcasting cohorts must be brought closer to combat than an alchemist cohort. My alchemist can hand all his extracts per day to me to use without him being near combat. If you bring a cohort closer to combat, you will have to expend resources to make him less squishy. Otherwise a dm is going to be killing your cohorts more often.
Nope, didn't miss it. Just didn't consider it any more broken than the following :
Cleric, with feats to cheapen magic item creation, magic item creation feats. Cleric stays at home, brews potions, makes single use magical items, etc. Every month or so, he either runs out, or the PC comes back to town, loads up a haversack full, and takes off again. Anything that's not used is sold in towns by the group rogue. And the items can be handed out to the entire party. The alchemist at least has to be dragged around with you to give them each morning, which means he can be targeted. The cleric or wizard can t-port to you and t-port back every week or so.
EDIT : Note, I'm not saying it's not difficult for the GM to balance, only that an Alchemist is no more 'broken' than anything else. Oh, and the cleric's stuff doesn't spoil overnight. :)
leadership isn't really that bad. cohorts tend to take up a share of the treasure. which serves as a balancing factor for most adventure paths. they also free up a party for roles, classes, or options not normally afforded because of core roles that many deem needed.
for example,
the guy who got reluctantly coerced into playing the healer via group pressure can actually bring in that arcane trickster he really wanted to play.
or the guy who got reluctantly coerced into playing the trapfinder via the same group pressure, can bring in that mad scientist concept he really wanted to play.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Lets look at a few things:
A COHORT DOES NOT COME EQUIPPED.
Nor do Followers.
So yes you pay a Feat, but then you also have to dedicate significant wealth in getting the newly arrived mouths to feed the appropriate equipment for their role. Similarly they will also require ongoing food and shelter and a host of other ancillary costs.
If the GM makes the player deal with the Cohort AND the Followers the Feat balances out, if he just thinks he can blow a Feat for a free ride then the Feat is broken.
But lets be clear...
A COHORT DOES NOT COME EQUIPPED.
|
Leadership is really campaign-dependent; it depends on how your game is set up. In a game with only 2 or 3 PCs [due to scheduling conflicts and such], Leadership can provide a much needed extra hand to help out in tough encounters.
Conversely, in a game with 6 or 7 PCs, Leadership can really bog things down if multiple players decide to take it.
However, in any game, if the cohort / followers aren't an active part of every mission [i.e. they are left to manage the party's stronghold], the impact is negligible.
Hell, if I ever get the chance to play in a Kingmaker game, I very much intend to pick up Leadership for the express purpose of having reliable folks managing national affairs. A loyal, competent Royal Chamberlain would sure take a load off my mind while out subjugating the River Kingdoms!
In any case, Leadership holds many of the same pitfalls as a conjurer / enchanter type character with hordes of minions; you just use a feat to get the minions instead of spell selection.
|
|
Lets look at a few things:
A COHORT DOES NOT COME EQUIPPED.
Nor do Followers.
So yes you pay a Feat, but then you also have to dedicate significant wealth in getting the newly arrived mouths to feed the appropriate equipment for their role. Similarly they will also require ongoing food and shelter and a host of other ancillary costs.
If the GM makes the player deal with the Cohort AND the Followers the Feat balances out, if he just thinks he can blow a Feat for a free ride then the Feat is broken.
But lets be clear...
A COHORT DOES NOT COME EQUIPPED.
Actually, "a cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level." Right off of page 129 in the Core Rulebook.
i beleive the leadership feat is unnecessary and the followers should have been a benefit of one's charisma score.
if somebody wanted a second PC, i can be bargained with. a case would have to be made. but i can be convinced.
i have no trouble with pre equipped cohorts, even with PC stats and PC wealth for thier level. i would just adjust the encounters accordingly as if they were another PC. and XP/Loot would be divided in such a manner.
"a cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level."
Thats what the rule says, not 'The cohort comes equipped with gear for its level'
Basically it is an instruction to the player, not an indication for them that it comes equipped. "A cohort should be equipped", ie you should equip it, and they are letting you know to what standard. You can equip it LESS (bad), or MORE (ie be generous, and earn that Leadership modifier as such)
Lets look at a few things:
A COHORT DOES NOT COME EQUIPPED.
Nor do Followers.
So yes you pay a Feat, but then you also have to dedicate significant wealth in getting the newly arrived mouths to feed the appropriate equipment for their role. Similarly they will also require ongoing food and shelter and a host of other ancillary costs.
If the GM makes the player deal with the Cohort AND the Followers the Feat balances out, if he just thinks he can blow a Feat for a free ride then the Feat is broken.
But lets be clear...
A COHORT DOES NOT COME EQUIPPED.
Got a rules citation for that? They are built using NPC rules. The NPC rules accounts for gear.
MDT: You are still limited to 1 magic item per day. I honestly don't see how an additional 30 potions in the party each month is going to be overpowered. If you ask me, that player just wasted a valuable resource that was the cleric.
"a cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level."
Page 129 in the Core Rulebook.
Should be equipped. That is pretty cut and dried right there.
Not
"Comes equipped as per a standard NPC of its level" or anything of the sort.
The onus is on the player to equip the cohort.
"Well, my cohort just reached level six. Hey, he should take Leadership too, and get a cohort himself! Wait...." *begin breakage*
Don't plant those seeds man... nothing good will come of it.
The "should" be equipped part may be a weakness of their argument, but you are jumping way ahead of yourself if you think that implies that they show up in front of you naked and gearless.
The should is very clear.
It isn't an 'argument' it outlines an instruction to the player in how they should be equipping said NPC. That Cohort does indeed show up a peniless beggar.
Sorry, but there is nothing to say they SHOW UP with a brass razoo.
Equipment is the sponsors responsibility.
You can feel free however, to misinterpret the rules in any way you like in your homebrew world, but the CRB is clear cut.
I don't know who is arguing what side since it seems you both agree that the cohort shows up with NPC gear, but I will agree that is what happens. After that it is up to the sponsor to get him equipment from that point.
The Leadership feat says that they come equipped as an NPC of their level, as per a chart. For a martial character, that screws them over pretty fierce. I was looking at taking Leadership at level 13, but the ranger I had planned to choose will only have ~10k gold, one eighth of what a character my level would have.
That's a complete joke, and it pushes players to pick spellcasters who are already more powerful.
I wish they'd get either NPC gold of their level, or 1/2 or 3/4ths your starting gold as per WBL.
If a player is taking Leadership and controlling all of the cohort's actions, hence getting twice as much play time as everyone else, then it's broken (in the sense that it makes the game significantly less fun for me if I don't have a cohort).
If the cohort is just a friendly NPC who travels along with the party and the GM would allow that even without the Leadership feat, then the feat is underpowered (since it's just saying "NPC is my best friend" instead of "NPC is everyone's friend").
I would much, much rather have 6 PCs in a party than 5 PCs and one cohort.
No I am arguing flat out that the NPC is gearless, the 'should be equipped' line is an instruction to the player about the appropriate level of gear that should be given to that cohort.
Nowhere in the description does it say anything about it 'comes equipped with', indeed people saying that it does are needing to add a lot of info that plain isn't written.
The Leadership feat says that they come equipped as an NPC of their level, as per a chart.
Please cite that.
The Leadership feat says that they come equipped as an NPC of their level, as per a chart. For a martial character, that screws them over pretty fierce. I was looking at taking Leadership at level 13, but the ranger I had planned to choose will only have ~10k gold, one eighth of what a character my level would have.
That's a complete joke, and it pushes players to pick spellcasters who are already more powerful.
I wish they'd get either NPC gold of their level, or 1/2 or 3/4ths your starting gold as per WBL.
They are NPC's so they should get NPC wealth. The feat is already giving you an entire other character to use. Yeah martial characters are behind the power curve, but that is because casters are generally better.
The martial character can still be competitive though.I find it easier to take the leadership feat as early as possible, and keep equipping the character from that point. Another idea is to start saving the gold in advance so that if you don't choose a cohort until 13 level the money will already be there.
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
The Leadership feat says that they come equipped as an NPC of their level, as per a chart.Please cite that.
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.
If you go from this part bolded, over to the 'Creating NPCs' section, you find...
Step 6: GearAfter recording all of the NPC's class features, the next step is to outfit the character with gear appropriate to his level. Note that NPCs receive less gear than PCs of an equal level. If an NPC is a recurring character, his gear should be selected carefully. Use the total gp value found on Table: NPC Gear to determine how much gear he should carry. NPCs that are only scheduled to appear once can have a simpler gear selection. Table: NPC Gear includes a number of categories to make it easier to select an NPC's gear. When outfitting the character, spend the listed amount on each category by purchasing as few items as possible. Leftover gold from any category can be spent on any other category. Funds left over at the end represent coins and jewelry carried by the character.
So, the feat says they should be equipped as NPCs and to see that chapter. Then in that section, it tells you how to determine the base equipment allotment based on level. The 'should be equipped' is a direction to the GM, not the Player. It's the rules telling the GM how to handle the cohort, not the Player.
If it were up to the PC to equip the cohort, then there would be no reference to the gear section of the NPC section, as the PC can equip the Cohort with whatever gear he wants to if he's paying for it, same as a Druid's animal companion's gear comes from his WBL. Same as a summoner pays for any gear his Eidelon uses that he wants. A cohort is an NPC that is attached to the character. All NPCs follow the same creation rules, and he's equipped as such. If the PC wants to give him better gear, then he can, but it comes out of his WBL.
The Leadership feat says that they come equipped as an NPC of their level, as per a chart.Please cite that.
It has already been cited. The problem is you are taking it as helpful hint to the player instead of as a rule.
What that tells me is that the cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level, and the following appended chart shows me what that translats to in actual gold terms.
If it CAME with that level of wealth out of the box the line should be:
"The cohort 'begins with/arrives with/comes with/starts play with/ISequipped with gear appropriate for its level (see Creating NPCs)."
You should equip it.
I can just see it now; given that a party member took Leadership, the less scrupulous players begin killing the cohorts off to far them for loot - they know five minutes later a fully equpiied replacement will come along with fresh treasure for the pile.
It becomes pretty game breaking after a couple of cohorts die off and the party gets to keep the loot each time, nice sideline business.
Sorry, but that 'Should' word is there for a reason.
FAQ it if you want, but I have to disagree with 'free loot for all' at the cost of a Feat.
Where it becomes a RULE is that if teh player gives LESS than the base amount then he may well suffer a Leadership penatly, and conversely he can pay MORE and get the fairness/generosity bonus.
Separate question: Does a cohort even need to see an encounter to get experience?
I only ask because
it does not specify that he has to participate in the encounter. It states that a cohort does not take a piece of the party's xp, instead he gets xp as determined by yours and his lvls.
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.
I've never required it, as long as he's doing things for you. For example, if you set him up running your business, then he's gaining experience running it. If you leave him in charge of your followers as they rebuild the village the orcs wiped out, then he's doing what you wanted him to do, and he get's experience and levels appropriately with you.
|
I can just see it now; given that a party member took Leadership, the less scrupulous players begin killing the cohorts off to far them for loot - they know five minutes later a fully equpiied replacement will come along with fresh treasure for the pile.It becomes pretty game breaking after a couple of cohorts die off and the party gets to keep the loot each time, nice sideline business.
Nah, the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty quick with that cumulative -2 penalty to Leadership score.
Although I like wraithstrike's "you can't get a new cohort, you still have your original, he's just dead" ruling. :)
What that tells me is that the cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level, and the following appended chart shows me what that translats to in actual gold terms.
If it CAME with that level of wealth out of the box the line should be:
"The cohort 'begins with/arrives with/comes with/starts play with/ISequipped with gear appropriate for its level (see Creating NPCs)."
You should equip it.
I can just see it now; given that a party member took Leadership, the less scrupulous players begin killing the cohorts off to far them for loot - they know five minutes later a fully equpiied replacement will come along with fresh treasure for the pile.
It becomes pretty game breaking after a couple of cohorts die off and the party gets to keep the loot each time, nice sideline business.
Sorry, but that 'Should' word is there for a reason.
FAQ it if you want, but I have to disagree with 'free loot for all' at the cost of a Feat.
Where it becomes a RULE is that if teh player gives LESS than the base amount then he may well suffer a Leadership penatly, and conversely he can pay MORE and get the fairness/generosity bonus.
It says "you should equip it" because you are the one deciding what equipment it gets.
As to the "kill many cohorts" idea that kills your leadership score, and GM's are supposed to use common sense to avoid abusing rules. In other words it may work in theory, but I don't know a sane or experienced GM who would allow it in a real game so that is not really a good argument.I mean by RAW death does not even do anything to you so they first cohort never really leaves if RAW>common sense.
PS:The death condition never states you can't continue to take actions just to be clear.
Separate question: Does a cohort even need to see an encounter to get experience?
I only ask because
it does not specify that he has to participate in the encounter. It states that a cohort does not take a piece of the party's xp, instead he gets xp as determined by yours and his lvls.
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.
No it doesn't.
I can just see it now; given that a party member took Leadership, the less scrupulous players begin killing the cohorts off to far them for loot - they know five minutes later a fully equpiied replacement will come along with fresh treasure for the pile.It becomes pretty game breaking after a couple of cohorts die off and the party gets to keep the loot each time, nice sideline business.
Nope, you're wrong again. If the party kills the cohort, then the player is responsible for it's death, and after the first cohort or two, he's out of cohorts, nobody wants to follow him anymore. So, he's giving up a feat for what, 5,000 to 7,500 GP worth of low level equipment, which he will then be able to sell for 2,500 to 3,750? You really think a feat is worth that?
Sorry, but that 'Should' word is there for a reason.
Yep, it is, because it's directed at the GM so they know how to equip the NPC, just as the entire NPC section is directed at the GM, not players.
FAQ it if you want, but I have to disagree with 'free loot for all' at the cost of a Feat.
Don't have to FAQ it, it's plain simple language, so long as you're not twisting the rules into pretzels to fit your own preconceptions. And since the idea that it's 'Free Loot For All' is just bizarre given the amount of money we're talking about, I see no reason to dignify that further.
Where it becomes a RULE is that if teh player gives LESS than the base amount then he may well suffer a Leadership penatly, and conversely he can pay MORE and get the fairness/generosity bonus.
Citation Please, please cite chapter and verse where it says the PC has to equip them, and that failure to do so is a leadership penalty.
|
|
No it doesn't.
it does not specify that he has to participate in the encounter. It states that a cohort does not take a piece of the party's xp, instead he gets xp as determined by yours and his lvls.
Yes it does. It says to multiply the result of (cohort level divided by PC level) by the number of XP the PC received. Then add that number to the cohort's XP total. It doesn't say take the XP from the PC and give it to the cohort. Indeed, you can't take it from the encounter total, because you've already divided it up among the PCs.
So how did said player CAUSE the Cohorts death?
He has to CAUSE it to suffer the penalty, he doesn't suffer if the cohort simply dies.
Now I see whey you guys are struggling.
Failing to equip your Cohort would fall under 'Leaders reputation, Aloof'.
Equipping your cohort with more gear than you 'should' would be 'fairness and generosity'.
I dont need to give chapter and verse, its all on the same page you have already referenced and are currently reading from, go have a look at the sidebars.
Anyhow have FAQ'd it.
Its pretty clear to me, but hopefully an 'Official' response might clarify the point.
An alchemist showing up once a day to hand you all his class abilities outside of combat is much safer than a wizard or cleric that has to be around to cast his minutes/lvl spells, minutes before a combat.
But, don't also forget to consider that the wizard or cleric can cast short duration buffs in combat without the main character having to spend any actions for it to happen.
So basically the alchemist pulls ahead if you're paranoid about getting a cohort killed, and the normal caster pulls ahead if you value action economy.