Of course, my common sense also dictates that cohorts can't take Leadership. If they could, they wouldn't be cohorts.
And I'll just bet that some player has actually said "but, it doesn't say that in the rules!" Just be clear, I agree with your common sense ruling.
Hee, no, I agree, it most certainly is a house rule I institute to deal with a corner case which may qualify as a broken application of the feat. Even then, I feel like it gives sufficiently diminishing returns that the problem is more a glut of actions that's annoying to deal with, more than a huge spike in power.
I mean...seriously, am I missing something? Assuming that your cohort can't take the feat, and recognizing that the followers have essentially no practical application, why does everyone go crazy about this feat?
When I DM, I have no problems allowing PCs' cohorts to take Leadership (and then the cohorts of the cohorts to take Leadership, etc).
That's one awesome way, for us, to have a PC build up his own organization, and then eventually barony or even kingdom!
...As for the Leadership Feat itself: I have a party of 5 PCs, one took the Leadership Feat early on and a second took the feat just recently. It is in my opinion making the party way to large. If the party started off smaller then it might have been ok, but starting off with a decent size party and adding more makes it slightly frustrating. I also think it sort of puts the other characters without cohorts too much in the back seat ...
I agree and can one up you sir. I DM a larger group of 8 players. At one point we had two players both take the leadership feat and add cohorts. I don't have a problem with including the feat on principle, but what we found is that the players with cohorts would inevitably take up more than their fair share of game time. For this reason we have all decided that as long as we have a group of 6 or more PCs, cohorts that are going to participate in combat are not welcome. The players who were using cohorts were completely behind this group decision.
So I don't think the feat is broken, but in larger groups it can become problematic simply due to equitable use of game time issues.
Of course, my common sense also dictates that cohorts can't take Leadership. If they could, they wouldn't be cohorts.And I'll just bet that some player has actually said "but, it doesn't say that in the rules!" Just be clear, I agree with your common sense ruling.
It's called "chain of command," Revan. That's how it works.
If your GMing ability is inefficient enough to balance it being used that way, by all means make a house rule, but...
..."it doesn't say that in the rules."
:P
Slow players are...slow. :p
I hate it when it gets to a players turn and they almost appear startled as though they weren't expecting it.
The time it takes for a player to complete all their actions is equal to the sum of the time it takes to complete each action. If the time it takes to complete each action is equal to the average, than adding more individual actions (forex. by adding a cohort) will most certainly increase the time it takes to complete all their actions.
But not all actions ARE equal, and not all players operate at the same speed. An 'additional action' might come from a Cohort, but equally a Pet/companion/familiar/summon so its not like Cohorts are necessarily worse.
How much time are we talking anyhow? I can usually resolve my round plus that of my AC in under a minute, yet other players might take a couple of minutes just on their turn.
If players are taking too long, then put a time limit on their turn.
That said, its a game, not a race :)
I simplify to get a point across without getting it bogged down in pointless and confusing pedantry.
Umm you were the one stating
The time it takes for a player to complete all their actions is equal to the sum of the time it takes to complete each action. If the time it takes to complete each action is equal to the average, than adding more individual actions (forex. by adding a cohort) will most certainly increase the time it takes to complete all their actions.
let me simplify that for you: "The more actions a player has to make, the longer his turn will take".
There you go, simplified your simplification right down.
That being said, not all actions, or players, resolve at the same speed.
And given the myriad reasons a player might have to take several actions on their turn, limiting one factor (cohorts) seems strange.
If you want to limit anything, simply limit the duration of their turn.
Give them an egg timer and if they haven't finished, then they forfeit.
Seriously, I don't understand why I have to point this out.
What about a player having multiple attacks, what about a range of other things (actions) that need to be resolved, are you planning on limiting those too?
"Sorry Billy, but because you are so slow you only get one attack per round now and forfeit the others until you learn to play at a speed I deem appropriate; and no Animal Companion or Summoning spells for you!"
No.
Try the timer.
A slow player with a PC who has multiple attacks will -still- get their complete actions resolved faster than a slow player with a PC with multiple attacks who also has a cohort with multiple attacks.
I just don't think you get it.
So if they didn't have multiple attacks, but had a cohort, whould taht be ok with you?
What if only the player had multiple attacks and not the cohort?
How many actions are you planning to allow?
How long, in minutes and seconds does a 'slow' player take?
I think you completely miss the point that there are many reasons for a player to have a multitude of actions, and simply disallowing one facet of the game as though it is the culprit seems a bit naff to me.
If you are so concerned by the TIME it takes someone to resolve their turn, LIMIT THE TIME.
A slow player with a PC who has multiple attacks will -still- get their complete actions resolved faster than a slow player with a PC with multiple attacks who also has a cohort with multiple attacks.
There's this thing we have going in the group I play in I'd like to share - it's called "Helping each other". How it works: when someone seems to be struggling to play we take some time working through the particular issues and...
I'm not saying ours is the right way to play! There is no badwrongfun in leaving each player to struggle through their mess bogging the group down with their lack of knowledge. If that's what's fun for your group, POWER ON! *FIST BUMP*
On-topic, I find this argument a bit irrelevant. The type of player who's going to agonize over his cohort's move is going to agonize just as long over whether to cast spell X or Y, or whether to disarm, feint or trip with his own character. Shifty's right - that player needs a timer so they can learn to play within the limits of reality, but a feat isn't broken just because some guy might slow down the game.
::EDIT:: Of course, one could argue that the cohort is generally an NPC with class levels so the one bogging the game down is the GM.
Regards,
Shifty's Yes-Man XD
There's this thing we have going in the group I play in I'd like to share - it's called "Helping each other".
No wai!
Revolutionary concept :P
My group was doing it before it was cool. :)
You might have been a trend setter once, but soon all the kids will be doing it and you will have to swap to nihilistic indifference just to be different.
Oh, and one thing that goes a great way towards balancing the cohorts and retaining the feeling of them as NPC's rather than extra party members is to _not have the leader control his cohort_. Not in combat, not out of combat. Now, this may put a lot of work on the DM if he's doing it, which is why we've used a solution I found on ENWorld some years ago, which has been working great:
The other players control the NPC's. We do this with summoned monsters and animal companions too, in fact. This also speeds things up, as our fastest player controls two cohorts and our slowest doesn't control any (though he still has one). This is our current setup and control:
Player A controls his character (Bard) as well as Cohort B and C
Player B controls his character (Ranger) as well as Animal Companion C
Player C controls his character (Rogue/Fighter) as well as Cohort A.
Player B is the slow one (quite new to the game), but an animal companion is easier than a cohort to control. Note that he cohorts are still tied to the characters, not the players - Player C controls a cohort that is the body guard of the Bard player A is playing.
This may look confusing when I try to explain it, sorry, but when playing it's really easy, helps to make cohorts something other than mindless servants, and alleviates the burden on me as DM.
So, now, one of them will take longer to resolve their complete action.
And lets assume that this assumed level of skill is assumed to be 'competent' and you have magically got five players. But what if you got six players? is this bad because each player now has to wait 20% longer to get their turn? What if we only invite four people! we'd be 25% faster!
How much extra time are you 'assuming' that the action will take, and how much time is allowable before it becomes problematic?
If it is mere seconds, then what is the problem?
How long is 'too long' in your estimation?
Let's say that everyone at the table has the same level of skill.
I know and have heard of very few tables where that was the case. People have varying levels of time, commitment and interest and so assuming a constant skill level may not be realistic. I doubt any of the developers build their games around the assumption that all players just 'get it' and in fact their "Beginners Box" would indicate they believe that newer players may need a bit of a kick-start.
I didn't mean the group stops the game and helps the player, we will suggest that the player having a problem take a simple action that round and we (being I or the other experienced player) will look up the appropriate section. If you use the logic that something is broken because it takes too long then we should ban every feat and combat manoeuvre for new players. Again, I cannot see how Leadership could be broken because someone doesn't know how to play very well.
I remember my first combat (party of four vs six kobolds) and it took three hours to resolve. Is Pathfinder broken?
What if we only invite four people! we'd be 25% faster!
Brilliant, Shifty, if we can cut it down to just me and my best mate I ought to be able to run whole AP's in one night! SUPER-EFFICIENCY FTW \o/
Brilliant, Shifty, if we can cut it down to just me and my best mate I ought to be able to run whole AP's in one night! SUPER-EFFICIENCY FTW \o/
Preach it brother; who wants to be slowed down by the deliberations of other people, in fact if the GM could get his skates on too and not use more than one creature at a time (speeds up his turn) things would just be so much better. In fact if he's too slow I must just have to do without the GM too as an unnecessary timesinker.
i hate to say this but shifty has a point...
punishing a players because he's slow is not the answer and not fair. everyone has to learn the game at sometime and rushing slow players (and newer players are often slow)is not doing the game any justice.
It seems my long post was over looked a page back but if you look it over you will see time shouldn't be an issue. A cohort is an NPC. NPC's should be controlled by the GM. If a GM does not want to take the time to run a cohort as an NPC then that's the GM's fault not the feat. A lazy GM shouldn't be a GM in the first place. Now, just because a GM controls NPC's doesn't mean he has to role all the dice. Even though i run cohorts i often times allow the leader to role his attacks and such while im pondering the monsters next moves. A GM should always stay 2 steps ahead of the players as the players ALWAYS take more time. But thats ok. Monsters and NPC's shouldn't have to be as efficient as a PC as they dont have as much at stake. heck sometimes i dont even use all the monsters or NPC's actions! i know a player would never do this but GM controlled characters are not going to get mad or feel cheated if they dont get to use actions. One time i even had the BBEG just shouting orders and taunting the party for 3 rounds lol.
It shouldn't be that difficult to GM a cohort. Here's my trick. Give him personality. If you have a generalization of how that character is and how he acts in curtain situations then it's easy to anticipate what the cohort should do. he's not a PC, meaning he doesn't have to always plot to get the most use of actions or be the most effective. A cohort is there to assist his leader not save the day so most times he should do just that. it's not rocket science. As long as the leader is getting some useful help for spending the feat it's ok if the cohort is maximizing his actions. If you look back at my earlier post i state that a cohort should provide circumstantial bonuses like any other feat and be equal in power to a feat but not surpassing the power of a feat. If you maximize his actions each and every round then that starts to over power the feat so it's ok if the cohort is not doing the most DPR he can or using all his actions.
Here's a BASIC sample of what i put on a cohorts character sheet to guide his actions. these are guidelines to speed up play, they are not written in stone what exactly the cohort will do every situation but having a baseline will speed up play tremendously.
1)In combat Quintin prefers to look for his leaders guidance and will most times delay until after his leader.
2)Quintin tries to remain within 30 feet of his leader at all times.
3)Quintin uses his knowledge's to try and determine enemy qualities and will cast the most defensive spell that he has on hand on his leader the first round of combat.
4)If Quintins leader is engaged in melee by an enemy he will attempt to move into flanking and aid another on an attack action with his leader.
5)If Quintins leader is relatively safe for the round he will attack with range or cast defensive spells or buffs on his leaders allies if any are within 30 feet of his leader.
6) If Quintins leader seems hurt he will attempt to heal his leader.
7) If Quintins leader is in fair condition and the party is doing well he will engage in melee with the closest enemy to his leader.
Obviously every NPC will have a list that pertains to there class and there own personality. while it seems like a lengthy list after a while you get used to controlling the NPC and it becomes second nature. on average it takes me a couple seconds to run a cohorts initiative. He's run more like AI so as long as he's at least being helpful he's doing what he was meant to do without slowing down game time. Could he be more helpful and efficient? Sure, but if the player needs his help that badly he's not that strong of a leader in the first place. And if the Cohort is a little lax and inefficient this just makes the players seem more powerful and special anyways.
"Well, my cohort just reached level six. Hey, he should take Leadership too, and get a cohort himself! Wait...." *begin breakage*
Had that happen in one game, guy did the russian doll of leadership and forged a huge army. Then we found the deck on many things, a close ally ('man number 3' on the cohort chain)turned against him and suddenly there was a massive civil war. Hilarious as hell to watch.
A cohort is an NPC. NPC's should be controlled by the GM. If a GM does not want to take the time to run a cohort as an NPC then that's the GM's fault not the feat. A lazy GM shouldn't be a GM in the first place.
That's a bit insulting and elitist RBX. A GM is controlling an entire world, keeping track of dozens of NPCs, and in combat usually controlling multiple NPCs and keeping track of a tactical situation that is fluid. He has to keep multiple tactical viewpoints in his head, and unlike the players, he doesn't get to rest and watch while the other 3-4 people do their turns, taking his time to plan out his next move. He has to respond to every move every action without time to stop and think over the NPCs actions in detail.
The GM is not lazy if he doesn't not want to add 1 to 8 more NPCs to his list of things he has to control.
Now, if you meant, the GM is the final arbitrator of how the cohort behaves personality wise, then yes, I agree. But as far as combat goes, a GM is not lazy if he doesn't want to double the number of NPCs he has to control in combat. He's just already overworked. I think allowing the players to control the cohorts in combat is just fine.
Oh, and one thing that goes a great way towards balancing the cohorts and retaining the feeling of them as NPC's rather than extra party members is to _not have the leader control his cohort_. Not in combat, not out of combat. Now, this may put a lot of work on the DM if he's doing it, which is why we've used a solution I found on ENWorld some years ago, which has been working great:
The other players control the NPC's.
Yup, that's what we do also (well, not the animal companion, usually) - I like it especially because it prevents the person with leadership from somehow acting as if they share some sort of mindlink with the cohort and, for that matter, the cohort from acting like he has no will or motivations of his own. (Plus, it means the guy with leadership has to explain his plan to the guy controlling the cohort, which just makes sense).
Also, I find that by picking who plays said cohort, you get away from the slow players dragging you down thing.
I hate to say this but shifty has a point...
I hate that too, when Shifty has a point. He's right, you shouldn't punish a player for being new or slow.
A cohort is an NPC. NPC's should be controlled by the GM.
Yes and no; the GM needs to be involved in Cohort creation and does need to remind the player that his Cohort is not an indentured servant. That doesn't mean that the GM has absolute control of the Cohort. The GM just needs to step in when the player chooses an action that the Cohort wouldn't necessarily peform. I guess I'm saying Cohorts work best with lots of GM oversight.
- Player: my Cohort is going to rush the bad guy and go toe-to-toe with him!
GM: your Cohort is a Bard and he's not really a melee fighter at all.
Player: yeah, but our Fighter is getting his butt kicked and we need to save him. We'll need him for what comes after this.
GM: your Cohort looks at you like you're crazy and stays where he is (in the rear, with the gear.)
The Leadership feat is far from broken, it just requires a lot of GM input. You can't just let the player roll with it on auto-pilot.
Or perhaps a GM that can do a bit of thinking for oneself.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.
That was a little snarky...
The feat fairly spells out the relationship between a cohort and it's master. which leaves much of the cohort under the GM's authority.
Thread's like this clearly indicate that there needs to be a little more said about this particular Feat. Really, Leadership is so much more than any other Feat in the book. It's just... different.
Anything in this game can be broken if the GM allows it to break.
I submit that the Power Attack Feat can't be broken, neither can Weapon Focus. Those are but two example. Not everything in the game can be broken and it's dumb to say that.
If you're going to expect a chapter on every item that can be broken, the Core Rules would be larger than the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Again, snarky much?
A cohort is an NPC. NPC's should be controlled by the GM. If a GM does not want to take the time to run a cohort as an NPC then that's the GM's fault not the feat. A lazy GM shouldn't be a GM in the first place.That's a bit insulting and elitist RBX. A GM is controlling an entire world, keeping track of dozens of NPCs, and in combat usually controlling multiple NPCs and keeping track of a tactical situation that is fluid. He has to keep multiple tactical viewpoints in his head, and unlike the players, he doesn't get to rest and watch while the other 3-4 people do their turns, taking his time to plan out his next move. He has to respond to every move every action without time to stop and think over the NPCs actions in detail.
A cohort is a part of that world. As a constant recurring NPC in the party he could play the most important part of that world, he's a constant tool for the GM which to paint a picture of that world with. The gm can use the cohort for all manner of opportunities and RPing to give the players a trusted friendly view of the world. he's the perfect paintbrush. I gave a sample above on how to build a personality list, this should speed up the fluid of combat easily. Just play him as any other NPC, heck treat him like your own character if you wish. You don't have to spend minutes a round deciding an action for him. Like you said the GM is used to controlling multiple NPC's anyway,whats a few more that have added perks for the GM to use? And there's nothing wrong with not thinking over NPC's actions in detail as you said, as long as the players are just having fun.
The GM is not lazy if he doesn't not want to add 1 to 8 more NPCs to his list of things he has to control.
OK i agree and lazy wasn't fair in this case.If your players are adding 1-8 cohorts that means you have 1-8 players in the first place. I think in this case there is no need for leadership and a GM should probably not allow it in the game if it's going to bog him down. 1-8 players is more than enough already.
Now, if you meant, the GM is the final arbitrator of how the cohort behaves personality wise, then yes, I agree. But as far as combat goes, a GM is not lazy if he doesn't want to double the number of NPCs he has to control in combat. He's just already overworked. I think allowing the players to control the cohorts in combat is just fine.
There's nothing wrong with allowing players to control cohorts in your game if that's how you want to do it. I stated earlier simply that a GM SHOULD control a cohort. A GM should be aware that when you give total control of a cohort to a player the feat becomes overpowered, which is what this thread is really about. If you feel it will bog you down it might be a good idea to just not allow the feat in the first place. But thats just advice, im not telling you how to play your game.
i wasn't trying to be insulting. Or elitist. let me reiterate what i was trying to say more politely.
The feat is not broken. It's one of the very rare feats that is what the GM makes of it. If he allows ultimate freedom of leadership and players get full control of a cohort then more than likely it is going to become overpowered and abused sooner or later. The GM can control how the feat is on par with other feats by how much control of the cohort he allows the players to have. When a GM relinquishes control of a cohort the GM needs to realize he's also relinquishing the power limit on the feat. I think most people can realize how this would be the the case.
I don't feel giving players full control to a cohort is how the feat was meant to be used. Actually per RAW it says nowhere that a player controls a cohort it says a player attracts a cohort. If anything,there is evidence to support that the player does not gain control of the cohort. A cohort often uses references to NPC for various things.
PRD:leadership
Benefits: This feat enables you to attract a loyal cohort and a number of devoted subordinates who assist you. A cohort is generally an NPC with class levels, while followers are typically lower level NPCs. See Table: Leadership for what level of cohort and how many followers you can recruit.
When you give control of an NPC to a player of course things are going to get screwy and overpowered, as NPC are not suppose to be controlled by players. Try giving control of a shopkeeper or BBEG and see how that plays out....
As i stated earlier,If a GM is going to allow cohorts then he needs to anticipate how they will effect the game. This includes adding to his work load, slowing down players turns, how it effects CR's and so on. A cohort can change a lot of things. If a GM allows leadership then it's only fair to allow it to ALL players, again he should plan for the worst case scenario and anticipate how 1-X cohorts could effect the game. If cohorts will bog a GM down he needs to realize that before it happens. If giving the players full control of the cohort will overpower the feat he needs to realize that as well. It also might be a good idea to to ask players before a campaign starts who is interested in taking leadership to get an idea if it will be to much he's willing to handle. If leadership is to much for a GM to handle or more than he's willing to tack on then don't allow it in the game.
I happen to like leadership and i am a GM. yes it slows me down some but the rewards are worth it to everyone in the group the way i play out the cohorts. Also i have run campaigns where i didn't allow cohorts as i just didn't want to deal with it or it would have made the party larger than what i desired. I wasn't being elitist because i've been in both boats. But what i don't like is when people say leadership is broken when it's not. It can become broken because of how a GM runs the feat, not the feat in and of itself. leadership is a good tool for the player and GM both, but it does require a lot of work and insight on the part of the GM.
|
I hate that too, when Shifty has a point. He's right, you shouldn't punish a player for being new or slow.
You should never punish a player for being new. It is like giving an F on the first day of school.
But man, i HATE slow players...and not those who are new at things....i hate players who even if they have been playing this game for the better part of ten years, still don't know the rules and take forever to calculate bonuses and to decide what to do. I hate that.
The idea that a player who is slow, either because he is new to the game or because he is just a slowass, is being punished by not allowing him to take up twice as much time with an optional 2nd character is asinine.
Nor is it punishment to suggest he not try a multi-summoner or pet until he has gotten up to speed. PF even has options for all of the old classes that came with pets, like an arcane bond, druid domain, hunter's bond with companions or the divine bonded weapon.
I don't believe a slow player can't improve their speed. It takes patience and practice, like anything else. That doesn't mean that the entire group ought to suffer while someone pours over their multiple options for half an hour.
Just noticed this thread while searching for info on the leadership feat and saw that there was a decent amount of differing opinion on cohorts coming with a standard set of equipment for their level. Probably a ton late on adding in my two cents but doesn't the feat state that it only gives you the ability to attract cohorts and followers under your leadership? This would mean that you don't instantly get a group of people who suddenly follow you just because you took a feat. I would think that as you have to put in the time and effort into getting these people or creatures on your side to begin with, they would already be a somewhat established NPC(Have stats, feats, and whatever items the GM deemed fit for the character before they were ever even met). I would find it to be incredibly strange and ridiculously metagame for these characters to suddenly find themselves with absolutely nothing if they were fully equipped five minutes ago when they were standing in the bar(Just an example.) and now that they have deemed you fit to follow, they are suddenly naked as the day they born(or spawned).
I'm not saying that I am correct on this one, just that it seems a bit off.
Just noticed this thread while searching for info on the leadership feat and saw that there was a decent amount of differing opinion on cohorts coming with a standard set of equipment for their level. Probably a ton late on adding in my two cents but doesn't the feat state that it only gives you the ability to attract cohorts and followers under your leadership? This would mean that you don't instantly get a group of people who suddenly follow you just because you took a feat. I would think that as you have to put in the time and effort into getting these people or creatures on your side to begin with, they would already be a somewhat established NPC(Have stats, feats, and whatever items the GM deemed fit for the character before they were ever even met). I would find it to be incredibly strange and ridiculously metagame for these characters to suddenly find themselves with absolutely nothing if they were fully equipped five minutes ago when they were standing in the bar(Just an example.) and now that they have deemed you fit to follow, they are suddenly naked as the day they born(or spawned).
I'm not saying that I am correct on this one, just that it seems a bit off.
My players and I like roleplaying encounters with friendly people, so recruiting a Leadership cohort is a chance for fun. And unless the cohort is found in rags in a prison (hasn't happened yet), then they are met on the road or in town with a reasonable amout of gear.
The silliest encounter was when a paladin of Iomedae in Rise of the Runelords took Leadership. His cohort was sent by paladin headquarters to be his new aide. At the beginning of Sins of the Saviors, the PCs arrive back in their hometown a few days after a crisis began. The paladin found that his new aide had been waiting for him to return and had taken over managing the crisis as well as she could. Of course, she had weapons, armor, and supplies appropriate for her station.
The main expense of having a Leadership cohort is keeping him or her properly equipped as the party and the cohort level up. The outmoded gear needs to be replaced out of the PC's purse, because the cohort was too busy to earn wealth on his or her own.
Having not read anything in the thread but the OP, my opinion of Leadership as a DM is as follows.
I personally do not like Leadership, but it's because of the people I play with. I have allowed Leadership in 5 games, and each time, the player ended up just having a pocket wizard. The wizard would do nothing except spend a few rounds before each combat buffing the everloving s!%* out of the Leader, and then vanish.
So essentially, their character became a Gestalt with a feat. They would be X level main class, with X-2 levels in wizard. For the low low cost of 1 feat, you gain a bunch of character levels worth of abilities!
I've only ever seen it used "properly" (in my opinion) in one game, and it was because the person was attempting to become king, and took Leadership to start building up a loyal following.
These days I ban hammer leadership without extreme justification from my players, and I usually prevent them from taking a spell caster as their cohort.