No it says CAUSE. Clear as day.
Once again, being responsible for someones life (passenger in your car) does not mean you CAUSED their death (When a drunk driver crashed into you both as you were travelling together).
You are twisting things now. If you order your cohort to attack a creature or if he gets killed because he followed you, you caused his death. Causing his death in this part doesn't mean killing him yourself.
To use Shifty's arguments against him...
If the devs intended that you had to directly cause his death yourself, they would have used either the phrase 'Directly causes cohort's death' or 'Murders own cohort' in the feat description. Since they did not specify it in such granular detail, it is obvious that the PC need only be responsible for the cohorts death in the most loose determination. Thus, if the PC was involved in the death, either through ordering the cohort into battle, or sending them on a dangerous journey alone, they are responsible for the cohort's death.
On the other hand, if the cohort get's into a drunken bar brawl on his night off and get's killed, then the PC is off the hook, as he had nothing to do with the death. Same if the Cohort dies of drowning when his ship sinks while traveling home to visit his sweetheart on his vacation.
No it says CAUSE. Clear as day.
Once again, being responsible for someones life (passenger in your car) does not mean you CAUSED their death (When a drunk driver crashed into you both as you were travelling together).
So if he is murdered outside of combat that doesn't count, BUT ANY IN COMBAT OR IN ADVENTURE DEATH DOES. If a babysitter takes kids to the pool and a few drowned, your saying that the babysitter is not at fault. Just keep giving them kids to watch, no loss of reputation as a babysitter. Because, really, the kids went under on there own just because the sitter put them their, failed to keep them safe and death resulted you can't say the sitter CAUSED the deaths right? It was the water and the lack of oxygen not poor LEADERSHIP that led to this right?
And "should" means they have there own stuff.
Use of Logic
LOL, and here I thought you and I never agreed on anything. :)
I am also wondering how there people with class levels have no gear? They had to have some way to survive while gaining those levels. :)And they had to have some reason for wanting to give up that autonomy to work for a higher level character.
In 1st edition such NPCs would come bereft of gear. It was one of the reasons that they were doing what they were doing.
Imagine an NPC adventurer gets killed & looted but some kind soul finds their corpse and their friends hock all that they can to get him raised.
Now not only does he have nothing, but he needs to pay back his friends (or non-friend associates) the cost of the raise dead spell.
Seems reasonable to hire out with a successful adventurer that can equip you with spare gear. Sure you might wind up enchanting a bunch of things for them, etc. But they equip you to the level that you should be at .. in other words you're instantly back on your feet again!
It seems a very reasonable way of reading things, and in fact if it's not the official rule seems like a nice way to handle the feat to me.
-James
1st edition was not so focused on gear(magical) so you could probably survive without it. In the current 3.5/Pathfinder version the NPC had to level up to get to where he is, and it really stretches immersion to say he did it without gear.
To assume that every cohort has already died or has come under some other condition that forced him to give up his gear is also a stretch.
I am also wondering how there people with class levels have no gear? They had to have some way to survive while gaining those levels. :)And they had to have some reason for wanting to give up that autonomy to work for a higher level character.
In 1st edition such NPCs would come bereft of gear. It was one of the reasons that they were doing what they were doing.
-James
Except that in 3.5/Pathfinder, those people still have the same reason to hire on with someone else. They usually have their own gear, though occasionally I could see one having lost it as you suggested, but it's not that great, or at least not that great for their level. It's enough to do the job, barely, but not much else. A fighter will have solid, but otherwise basic weapons and armor; a wizard will have a mostly empty spell book that has the minimum amount of spells in it, etc. So signing on with someone who looks like they are capable of fully equipping their followers with above average equipment isn't a bad idea even if you already have some of your own.
Strating out cohorts with no gear could make sense with the right background, but assuming that every cohort is unable to provide his own gear before finding employment is a bit unreasonable. They aren't able to put together more than a basic kit, so they still require patronage to get farther than where they currently are. Like most rules, the specific circumstances matter, and overdoing any one particular way of doing things is generally a good way to bore yourself and your players.
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.
This absolutely rocks! We haven't had anybody take Leadership, yet, but as I was reading the thread I was thinking that it would be cool to pick up a regular NPC instead of someone out of the blue. Then I got to your post, and you're already grooming the NPC's before you're taking the feat. I love it.
Honestly its more of a stretch that all these NPCs can sense when you take the leadership feat...
They don't sense anything. You take the feat, and the GM either assigns an NPC to you or one is created, but is assumed to have already existed in the gameworld somewhere.
Second, how often do NPCs get killed and their stuff taken? Well just look at what your party has done to get to the point at which your PC could take leadership.
Those are evil NPC's who are normally a part of organization X, and they don't come back to life. Even royalty does not come back to life in the game, even though they have the money, normally for meta-plot reason.
So the party skulks back later and recovers your corpse, and spends all of it's extra cash getting you raised. They're good people after all.
You are also assuming every cohort has died, had someone to bring him back and the funds to do so. It just got even less likely. I also go back to my earlier AP argument of those guys coming with gear.
I don't know if you are aruging rules are plausibility, but if it is rules then the devs, and most of the gaming world are doing it wrong, and I have yet to see that happen for any rule.Well anyway, it makes sense to me that cohorts are more likely to be desperate than not. It's not like they are lesser allies that bargain with the PC, right?
In you setup maybe, but that is not a general statement that always applies.
Now I'm not saying what's RAW and what's not. All I'm saying is that it can seem very reasonable for the cohorts that show up...
Well that is different. I was debating RAW with the other poster. I would have no problem with that being a background reason as to why a cohort wanted to tag along as long as it was not an "every cohort" rule.
This absolutely rocks! We haven't had anybody take Leadership, yet, but as I was reading the thread I was thinking that it would be cool to pick up a regular NPC instead of someone out of the blue. Then I got to your post, and you're already grooming the NPC's before you're taking the feat. I love it.
Thanks,
I usually, with my players, ask them about level 5 if they intend to take a cohort, and if they do, I ask them what they are looking for in a general way. Then I make sure some NPCs show up that fit that criteria. That way, they can start working on the relationship ahead of time. So that by the time they can take the feat, they have a plausible backstory for the cohort.I also try to keep a few NPCs around that might be willing to take the dead cohort's position, if one dies. To keep the story going. I hate 'Blah shows up randomly' and pledges to follow you. Not that I haven't used that, but when I did, it was a situation where the PCs were part of a military organization, and the cohort was assigned as a personal assistant by the powers that be, which is a different kettle of fish.
With all due respect, Shifty, getting an answer from the devs would do nothing to resolve the matter as different people use the feat for different reasons, and therefore, there is no "right" answer anymore than there is a "wrong" answer. Bugging the devs to have to point that out is kinda silly. You make good points, but since not everyone is going to utilize that feat the same way you do, they are limited to the circumstances around which you use the feat. It truly is up to the DM to decide how, or even if, they want to use it, and the parameters that it will work under for that particular campaign.
As for getting the cohorts into the game, I like to let the DM know, or if DMing, tell my players to tell me, early on that the feat is being considered. That reduces the need to have to make the cohorts appear out of thin air, but I can see in small parties that sometimes the need to fill the gap can justify just making someone appear out of nowhere.
I removed some posts. Please stop bickering.
Thank you Sunshadow.
I appreciate your constructive approach and well thought out answer.
Cheers.
As for getting the cohorts into the game, I like to let the DM know, or if DMing, tell my players to tell me, early on that the feat is being considered. That reduces the need to have to make the cohorts appear out of thin air, but I can see in small parties that sometimes the need to fill the gap can justify just making someone appear out of nowhere.
Yeah, but in the case of small parties, it's usually the case of just a GM run NPC that tags along just like all the player characters, isn't it? I mean, at low levels, you can't take cohort, so a cohort expanding out the party only works at higher levels.
That depends on several things, mdt.
One, what level did the party start at? If the party started at level 7 or higher, and many do, leadership is a valid option for filling gaps.
Two, did the party start out small or simply shrink over time? If it started out small, than the chances are good that the DM has been running an NPC alongside the party the whole time, and perhaps he tries to get a player to run it by letting that player take the leadership feat, or he can continue running it without the leadership feat and nothing changes. If, however, the party started out big, but has lost players over time, than the use of leadership instead of introducing a DM run NPC can be an option.
Third, what is the DM comfortable with? Does he enjoy running a full stable of NPCs, or does he prefer to farm out duties to the players whenever possible? That makes a big difference, and will shape what the DM is willing to consider when the subject of the leadership feat comes up.
True enough, but I guess what I was trying to point out was this...
A) Party is 1st level, only 3 players. In this case, it makes sense for the GM to add a fourth NPC character who's treated as a PC (WBL, etc) and ends up being run by the group as a whole.
B) If you are starting at a higher level, then is it really a good thing to have the slack be taken up by a cohort? I mean, if someone wants to do it that way, that's fine, but if they were starting at level 1, you'd do an NPC that everyone controlled and nobody had to give up a feat for. Wouldn't it make more sense to do the same in this situation? Rather than someone having to give up a feat for it (again, unless they want a cohort).
C) If it shrinks over time, then we're kind of back to B again, should someone give up a feat to fill out the party? Or should the GM just bite the bullet and make up an NPC and everyone just handles him/her/it.
True enough, but I guess what I was trying to point out was this...
A) Party is 1st level, only 3 players. In this case, it makes sense for the GM to add a fourth NPC character who's treated as a PC (WBL, etc) and ends up being run by the group as a whole.
B) If you are starting at a higher level, then is it really a good thing to have the slack be taken up by a cohort? I mean, if someone wants to do it that way, that's fine, but if they were starting at level 1, you'd do an NPC that everyone controlled and nobody had to give up a feat for. Wouldn't it make more sense to do the same in this situation? Rather than someone having to give up a feat for it (again, unless they want a cohort).
C) If it shrinks over time, then we're kind of back to B again, should someone give up a feat to fill out the party? Or should the GM just bite the bullet and make up an NPC and everyone just handles him/her/it.
Good points, and they pretty much cover why I don't like that particular use of the feat, and much rather prefer using it a tool to engage the character in the world. Sometimes, though, it is how the party and the DM want to handle it. For those willing to accept eating the feat, it works well enough even if it isn't ideal.
My take on Leadership is that it's a very powerful feat, often worthwhile if you have a decent charisma, but it's not game-breaking. The heavy Charisma investment to keep the cohort at a comparable level dramatically impacts its overall usefulness, from what I've seen.
I tend to run cohorts using PC stats and gear, but I also tend to be a pretty nice GM who likes PCs to feel like they're important. That said, the cohort gets run as an NPC, especially during combat, so the player doesn't specifically get additional actions.
I haven't seen Leadership taken by anyone other than my wife, who took it in her first campaign to get additional healing for the party in the form of a cleric, and who is taking it in Kingmaker because she's the Duchess and it makes sense. In the latter case, I also specifically stated that she had to choose from preexisting NPCs, rather than just having someone appear out of thin air, and she's done so.
[I tend to run cohorts using PC stats and gear, but I also tend to be a pretty nice GM who likes PCs to feel like they're important. That said, the cohort gets run as an NPC, especially during combat, so the player doesn't specifically get additional actions.]
I let the players run their cohorts. too much work for me! That said, i like to eat cohorts.
(This I wrote a long time ago, discussing why Asmodeus shouldn't have the Leadership feat. Read the full discussion if you'd like
The feat provides no mechanical benefits to the PC and a bunch of flavor benefits which require DM approval for anyways. The benefits are not worth a feat, because they are benefits that could be free.
Alternately, there is no way that a cohort is balanced against a doubled critical threat range with a single weapon, or +2 to Perception and Sense Motive. When you look at the feat isolated, rather than the concept not being worth a feat, you see the opposite...a feat that is more powerful than all other feats.
The cohort is more powerful than any other feat mechanically, but realistically, a second full or NPC character is just as likely to be allowed by the DM and costs the original character no feats. So this is an odd case of being to weak and too powerful at the same time.
The basic issue with Leadership for PCs is that the benefits it provides are not the type that ought to be codified with a feat. From the perspective that you control two characters, it is the most powerful feat ever, hands down. A first level human, first level fighter or third level anything else gets two feats, so you already have the advantage. From the perspective that the DM must give permission for the feat and the DM can give permission for a second character, the feat is absolutely useless.
The basic issue with Leadership for NPCs is that its benefits are subsumed in the whole "DM decides the loyalty and allegiance of every NPC on the planet" part of Dungeons and Dragons. And the feat, being designed to keep PCs from having an army of similarly powered characters behind them, is absolutely useless when it comes to determining followers. In order to get a single 16th level warrior as a follower, you need to be 1000th level and have a charisma score of 1278. Stop giving your NPCs Leadership. It is a fake feat. It might as well be a feat for purple eyes.
Leadership should be removed from the game as a feat.
(This I wrote a long time ago, discussing why Asmodeus shouldn't have the Leadership feat. Read the full discussion if you'd like
The feat provides no mechanical benefits to the PC and a bunch of flavor benefits which require DM approval for anyways. The benefits are not worth a feat, because they are benefits that could be free.
Alternately, there is no way that a cohort is balanced against a doubled critical threat range with a single weapon, or +2 to Perception and Sense Motive. When you look at the feat isolated, rather than the concept not being worth a feat, you see the opposite...a feat that is more powerful than all other feats.
The cohort is more powerful than any other feat mechanically, but realistically, a second full or NPC character is just as likely to be allowed by the DM and costs the original character no feats. So this is an odd case of being to weak and too powerful at the same time.
The basic issue with Leadership for PCs is that the benefits it provides are not the type that ought to be codified with a feat. From the perspective that you control two characters, it is the most powerful feat ever, hands down. A first level human, first level fighter or third level anything else gets two feats, so you already have the advantage. From the perspective that the DM must give permission for the feat and the DM can give permission for a second character, the feat is absolutely useless.
The basic issue with Leadership for NPCs is that its benefits are subsumed in the whole "DM decides the loyalty and allegiance of every NPC on the planet" part of Dungeons and Dragons. And the feat, being designed to keep PCs from having an army of similarly powered characters behind them, is absolutely useless when it comes to determining followers. In order to get a single 16th level warrior as a follower, you need to be 1000th level and have a charisma score of 1278. Stop giving your NPCs...
First I would like to say I have always liked your site, and I agree with your leadership opinion that it should not cost a feat.
If I am short on players and someone suggest leadership I have always just allowed them to play a 2nd PC. If that is not feasible then I throw in a DMPC. I just inform the players that he is only there to fill a role, and will not be in the decision making process.
As for just wanting someone to follow you around, if I get some good flavor you get an NPC. I just set up certain rules up front so we have an understanding.
I've empowered Leadership to grant more followers as well as other benefits. I've also given it for free to all characters at level one.
That's how overpowered I see it as.
I've empowered Leadership to grant more followers as well as other benefits. I've also given it for free to all characters at level one.
That's how overpowered I see it as.
It also depends on your players and how they will use it. I gave the followers out once. It was annoying to help the player track them though.
In my current game, there is, in addition to the PCs:
A 'DMPC' who is controlled half the time in combat by one of the players.
Probably 10ish NPCs who are around the level of a cohort who adventure with the PCs when needed. (And sometimes when not, to keep things spicy) Again, usually controlled by a player, to keep the DM's hands free.
A ship's crew, Olman warriors, a town militia and general hero worshipers who function similarly to followers.
Really, Leadership just ought to be something else, similar to the mass combat rules or kingship rules that Kingmaker included. If a DM can handle Leadership and related sort of things, they ought to be able to integrate it fluidly into the game without requiring a feat. And if the DM can't handle that, or if the adventure style prohibits that sort of thing, then the player wasn't going to get Leadership as a feat anyways.
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.
I don't think it is broken at all.
It is as it says "GM's discretion". If I don't want it in the campaign, I don't allow it. It is not like other feats where players can take it without consulting the GM first.
If I do allow it, I prepare for it with extra challenges. It's a feat that requires more preparation. That's about it.
|
Generally, I personally don't allow it. I also usually don't allow thrallherds or golem constructors.
Why not? They spend a resource to gain a benefit. Plus, golems are ridiculously expensive to make, and will damage that characters magic item making capacity and magic item bying capacity, by taking a huge chunk out of their wealth.
Generally, I personally don't allow it. I also usually don't allow thrallherds or golem constructors. I heard someone say they were going to make their henchman a diplomat or something. That's pretty sweet, and I would really consider it. The biggest problem I tend to notice is it decreases the fun for the other players, and helps drag rounds out more.
As long as the player is efficient with his turn it is not an issue.
As an example if someone want to summon monsters a lot I let them know that they need to have the stats ready, and if a lot of attack rolls are involved that using multiple dice at once helps.
Leadership is a fine feat, depending on the GM. My buddy (best GM I've ever played with) rules that we get to make our own cohorts and when we gear them we use PC wealth. Then we typicly control our own cohorts (unless he needs to use them to progress the story line) and we leave the followers at home. The last game I recall, we high-jacked an astroid, put a spelljamming helm on it and drove it back to toril. Everyone in the group (except myself) look leadership so we could populate 'our new planet' with the followers.
Leadership is not broken if the DM properly reigns the thing in. What is needed is guidance on how to do exactly that. This feat needs an entire section of CRB to be devoted to it.
- First thing a player needs to understand is that Leadership is a Feat, and only that.
The Cohort is not a Party member.
The Cohort should never be a drain on Party resources.
A 5th Level Wizard Cohort, in an 8th level party has "target" written all over him.
A Cohort does not serve the needs or whims of other Party members. The Cohort serves his master alone.
These are just a few things that really need to be outlined in the book. A Cohort is very useful, but the DM needs to constantly remind the player that his companion is in danger.
As for WBL, I think it's pretty obvious that a Cohort doesn't show up with nothing. As a 5th level character, with PC-levels no less, he's gonna have a few goodies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually don't think leadership is over powered or under powered if handled by the GM well. granted it takes a lot of work as a GM to get it just right but when a GM does it works out how it was intended to be. I also am probably one of the few that do like it as a feat. I think it was in 2nd edition you gained a stronghold and henchmen when you reached a curtain higher level. I wasn't fond of that. The way the system is now if you WANT a cohort you spend a feat. while it may seem like thats a tax if you consider it from a fighter stand point he has feets to spare. ANd i feel it was the fighter who the feet was really intended for anyway, a knight and his squire.
The thing with about a cohort is he is still a NPC- a NON PLAYER CHARACTER. That means the player does not have control of him. He is not an extension of the players power ambitions. Though he is a NPC he is also a cohort, which means he's a loyal companion, a friend, and an ally-a sidekick. He still has his own ambitions and free will. He is not bound to the player and is not a slave. If he is treated as such he can leave on his own accord. It was mentioned earlier about an alchemist handing out all his "goodies" everyday. First off a cohort is not going to do this. he's not a slave and didn't join up with the PC to be such. He may offer his goodies from time to time but if the player expects it of the cohort daily the cohort is going to realize his Leader is not a leader at all and not worth following.
I agree that you could easily throw in a DMPC. But the problem with this is how GM's play these DMPC's. For me i might have a DMPC join up from time to time if he has the same goals as the players AT THE TIME but such a character really should have his own ambitions and quests separate of the PC's- and never be a permanent member. Also i feel it's a conflict of interest, as some players will feel your taking away from there spotlight or outdoing them. Also a DMPC shouldn't be as loyal as a cohort, thats what leadership is for! If players see "why should we take a feat to gain a NPC when the GM gives us a better one for free!" then ofc leadership is stupid- the GM just made it obsolete and worthless. Also a DMPC should demand an equal share of treasure and experience since there actually just another PC in GM's clothing. This may not go over well in the long run for the party. If the DMPC doesn't get an equal share in return, and what character with a personality wouldn't, then again the GM is sugar coating the whole system and making leadership worthless.
A cohort should be played as a sidekick with free will and give benefits worthy of a feat but not exceeding it. The GM should use him to be versatile and help grant the PC a bonus to curtain conditions just as any other feat does. The cohort should be an asset to the leader NOT an extension of him!
what a cohort MIGHT do:
- Going total defense and providing cover for his archer master.
- Healing a wounded mentor and keep him in good health.
- Playing the bodyguard for the wizard who requested his skilled arms.
- Aiding his commander in an attack or skill via aid another.
- Distracting a foe in melee and going total defense so he's not in much danger and his rogue mob boss gains flanking and can sneak attack.
- Using and taking teamwork feats to work in tandem with his leader so the party doesn't have to take teamwork feats if they don't want to but the leader can make use of them!
- Sacrifice himself to save his master.
- Provide useful adventure hooks and information.
- Watch his horse and equipment while he's in a tomb, underground, or sleeping.
- Take his masters watch so he can be well rested.
- menial tasks such as cleaning, cooking, caring for his equipment etc.
- Spread word of his leaders great deeds.
- mysteriously have ties to a merchant and pull off a deal on item x...
- carry his access gear or items.
- aid in crafting items.
- aid in combat
- provide utility spells or circumstantial spells.
- free up spell space by memorizing circumstantial spells.
- create items and offer at a discount on a limited basis.
- watch his back.
- stay back out of melee taking ranged puck shots even though he's not that good at it.
- be an intelligent mount.
- Use his class abilities as directed by his master.
- loan one of his items to his master.
- very well may refuse anything against his character or alignment.
- Choose not to obey every order.
- make his own decisions.
- run away.
- aid the party but his foremost attention and dedication is to his master. IE he may choose to heal his hurt master when the party tank has a higher % of HP missing but may still buff or heal other party members from time to time if he thinks it helps his leader the most.
many of these things are trivial and very well might be considered a waste of an action by a player, and some are. But thats a cohorts role, to be a sidekick and aid his leader. A cohort should not be a min/maxing metagaming DPR racer who takes the most efficient actions and makes the most effective choices who charges into battle like he's the hero. While this shouldn't be taken to the extreme to be a complete moron, his role is really to assist- not to be another PC. On another note he should have a mind of his own and not be expected to do any and all of these things at whim.
A cohort SHOULD NOT:
- offer up all his special abilities or spells on a daily basis to his master(he's not a slave).
- loan items to party members besides his master unless extremely dire.
- put himself at needles risk.
- scout ahead alone (unless thats his role).
- take more risk than PC's
- Ask for anything in return for his loyalty.
- Take leadership
- Be expected to remain a cohort forever.
- controlled as if a pc.
- ordered what to do each round and every action.
- be built by the player
- forced to take specific feats,abilities,classes, or spells.
- loan wealth
- Obey other party members unless in character and to his best interest.
- be a magical meat puppet.
- taken advantage of.
- disrespected.
- fight to the death under all circumstances.
- chose to go everywhere (i'm sorry my lord but i choose not to accompany you into the tomb of the lich king!).
- be 100% predictable or reliable.
- act as a summoned monster.
In my campaign i play the NPC, this gives me a chance to actually play with the characters and not against them. It also lets me let the players shine as the cohort is always 2 levels under the party.It also lets me play up how cool the pc's are by giving the cohort faults or not optimizing him. For instance he may use a bow often but not have high STR or DEX to use it realy effectively. He will still hit from time to time but it the players hit more often and harder and it makes them feel more special. Also players hardly ever have faults, my NPC's ALWAYS DO like real people, this can provide some good comedy or good RP. Example: In kingmaker the party got ambushed by will o wisp's. Quintin the cohort succeeding on a knwledge check knew how deadly they could be and took off screaming into the night like a scared little girl. It turned into a side quest where the players had to track him down and rescue him from a pack of worgs. Not the best use of a feat that session if you look at it from a mechanics view but the players will never forget that incident and often bring it up. And if not for the cohort they wouldn't have had to fight the worgs and got the XP. Now they built Quintin an INN in the kingmaker city call the QUINT INN.
When i use DMPC's i also keep them 2 levels under so if a player likes the NPC he can take him as a cohort. It also lets me introduce story hooks without being to coincidental and allow an ongoing NPC the characters can relate to and chance for numerous RPing. When one of my players takes leadership the cohort just doesn't show up out of thin air as some have stated. A cohort shows up because of a characters fame, legacy, and exploits. When he takes leadership he's basically advertising "lord Darious of the Prevailing knights is now taking a squire. all those interested contact borganine of the golden cup". Or "Scias the earth elementalist seeks a skilled warrior, healer, scout, archer, etc...". The player has no control who or what the NPC actually is. If he asks for a healer he could be a cleric, oracle, fighter/cleric, or even a bard. I make up a couple NPC's that fill the role the player wishes to acquire and he gets to make a choice in which one he actually takes as a cohort through roleplaying, he doesn't get to look at the NPC's character sheet. If the players has no role preference i offer up random NPC roles and the player chooses one. A few times the player actually took all the potential cohorts on a quest to see them in actual use and how they play out, this was a great and smart experience.
In summary leadership is a nice feat when handled right. It's completely up to the GM if he wishes to allow it but he should consider how it will play out,how it will effect the game, and how to handle it. NPC's, DMPC's, and cohorts should be played completely different with there own unique perks and flaws. Remember every character is suppose to have there own personality. There not just automated magical items in the form of a person who the PC can activate for goodies, as I mention earlier a magical meat puppet so to speak! Leadership is the only unique feat in that it is what the GM makes of it!
thanks for your time.
In one of the campaigns I am in there are two characters with the leadership feat. Both of the cohorts have a background with the characters. One of the cohorts was a friend that fought with the PC, the other was a lesser member of the PCs faith. One of the cohorts was brought in to add flavor to the character. The other cohort was brought in to fill the healer role. This cohort stays in the middle of the party during battles and heals those that need it and buffs the party so that they can protect him. He stays out of the fighting as much as he can and buffs himself first and then the party. Neither of the cohorts tries to go to the front in battle.
Combat goes smoothly, because the two people with the cohorts are experienced gamers and usually prepare what they are going to do as the rounds are advancing. The equipment they receive from now on will come out of the PCs pocket. They came with basic NPC gear for 5th level.
In one of the campaigns I am in there are two characters with the leadership feat. Both of the cohorts have a background with the characters. One of the cohorts was a friend that fought with the PC, the other was a lesser member of the PCs faith. One of the cohorts was brought in to add flavor to the character. The other cohort was brought in to fill the healer role. This cohort stays in the middle of the party during battles and heals those that need it and buffs the party so that they can protect him. He stays out of the fighting as much as he can and buffs himself first and then the party. Neither of the cohorts tries to go to the front in battle.
I'd say that's exactly how it's 'sposed to be. In my KM campaign, the Duke took a Gnome Illusionist as a Cohort. The little guy stepped up, started casting offensive spells from the get-go. He made himself a target and soon got himself killed. The Duke raised his friend with his own money and has begun counseling the little guy to "keep his head down."
Combat goes smoothly, because the two people with the cohorts are experienced gamers and usually prepare what they are going to do as the rounds are advancing.This is really important to note; less experience players can become bogged down when they try to control an additional combatant. I considered having my Ranger take a Cohort, but opted out. It just seemed like it would too much for me. I have an animal companion already, so it would be just one more thing to take care of.
The equipment they receive from now on will come out of the PCs pocket. They came with basic NPC gear for 5th level.
This last bit is huge. Your cohort is your responsibility.
|
Two things; first of all, the whole argument about whether the NPC should come with equipment seems ridiculous to me, but to each their own. Second I always allow Leadership, but restrict cohorts and followers to NPC classes. Seems the easiest way to prevent 90%* of the shenanigans of having an extra PC classed character.
*(I say 90% because an Adept could still make a fair magic item factory, but I'd nix that with DM prerogative. If you aren't keeping your cohort with you on your adventures, you can't be assured his safety.)
I always allow Leadership, but restrict cohorts and followers to NPC classes. Seems the easiest way to prevent 90%* of the shenanigans of having an extra PC classed character.
I don't think limiting it to NPC classes is necessary. What is necessary is that the player understands that the Cohort is not a Party tool. And really, that goes for everyone at the table. The Wizard Cohort is not gonna be making items for all party members at 1/2-price. Just like them, he's out to make a buck.
If the devs intended that you had to directly cause his death yourself, they would have used either the phrase 'Directly causes cohort's death' or 'Murders own cohort' in the feat description. Since they did not specify it in such granular detail, it is obvious that the PC need only be responsible for the cohorts death in the most loose determination. Thus, if the PC was involved in the death, either through ordering the cohort into battle, or sending them on a dangerous journey alone, they are responsible for the cohort's death.
On the other hand, if the cohort get's into a drunken bar brawl on his night off and get's killed, then the PC is off the hook, as he had nothing to do with the death. Same if the Cohort dies of drowning when his ship sinks while traveling home to visit his sweetheart on his vacation.
I don't usually agree with MDT, so I feel it's important to say that I do agree with him here. If your Cohort dies in battle, because you told him to get in there and fight, that's on you, the Leader.
I don't usually agree with MDT, so I feel it's important to say that I do agree with him here. If your Cohort dies in battle, because you told him to get in there and fight, that's on you, the Leader.
I don't know why you don't agree with me more, I'm such an agreeable sort.
;)
I don't think Leadership is broken at all. I have no problem whatsoever with someone having a cohort. That can work nicely to round out a party, and an extra character of a couple levels lower than the party really isn't going to throw balance off in the least. If there's problems with one player's turn taking too long, assign control of the cohort to another player, or the DM, same as you might do with someone filling the field with summoned creatures. As to the followers...dozens of first level characters, who you get penalized severely if anything bad happens to them? They're not going to do anything, besides RP related functions that are fun to have.
Of course, my common sense also dictates that cohorts can't take Leadership. If they could, they wouldn't be cohorts.