|
Why would anyone *NOT* Take leadership, if they are allowed?
I dont think I've built a character that didnt go for leadership at level 7 since Pathfinder has come out (and with 3.5 I was always GMing).
I mean, you get a character two levels lower than yourself in addition to your primary character. How cool is that? Additionally, most GMs allow you to take a monstrous pet or some such.
I've seen it used for many characters to get a powerful or flying mount.
Or a caster to buff yourself. Or some way to shore up your weaknesses.
In my current case, I went with a sort of packmaster concept. I'm a half-orc Houndmaster Cavalier, and the Gm allowed me to take a giant Worg as my cohort (though power-wise, I'm sure there were better options than a Worg advanced to CR 7). Being a cavalier, and having the wolves, I grabbed a couple teamwork feats and gave them to all 4 characters, so my "pack" works well together.
Why would you take a regular feat at level 7, assuming you have a choice? I can't see any good reasons for it as a GM or a Player.
I'd think it would work like this for party composition, honestly.
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6
7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5
I suppose at high levels the cohorts fall behind for those with lower charismas.
Still seems pretty cool to me.
Extra actions really bog down the combat, plus you have to spread your wealth pretty thin in order to protect your cohorts. Of course, you can get around that, but those are two big reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
Many GMs wont allow the feat so I suppose that's a reason.
This is me.
|
|
I don't want to do the work. And it IS work.
Hmm. I suppose its more bookkeeping. I dont think tracking two melee characters is any more bookkeeping than playing a wizard though.
I can see two casters maybe not being worth the effort if you hate the bookkeeping.
Because it doesn't fit their character concept?
Hmm. I suppose there is that. I mean, some people will take things like "Skill Focus: Craft (Trapmaking)" because it fits their concept, even though it'll probably never be particularly useful.
I have a hard time thinking of a character concept where a cohort doesn't fit, but being in a party with the other players does fit.
I'm sure there are corner cases I haven't thought of though.
Extra actions really bog down the combat, plus you have to spread your wealth pretty thin in order to protect your cohorts. Of course, you can get around that, but those are two big reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
Hmm. The gear thing is less of an issue with monstrous cohorts, but I see your point. Usually I take some kind of beast, and give it masterwork barding of some kind, and if I can spare the cash I give it a single magic item.
I suppose extra actions can slow down combat, but if you're decisive or you run your 2-4 man "squad" as a single unit, it only takes you as long as it takes to roll the dice and count the damage.
Mechanically leadership is the most powerful feat to take. But some people take feats (and even entire classes) not just because they're the most powerful mechanically. If you apply the reasoning you're presenting here (take leadership because its the most powerful) to everything in the game, you're going to have a bunch of wizards and witches running around with a few divine casters and that's it.
Its not *Just* that its the most powerful feat that I was thinking of though. I have a hard time thinking of any adventuring party friendly character who would not also make sense with some manner of cohort or bestial mount.
Having a cohort and/or starting your own tribe/city is also just kindof awesome.
Unless I'm in a game where it's banned, I don't think I'd ever *Not* take leadership. - And the Cohort can be different every time!
Plus: There's a use for teamwork feats. The odds of the rest of the group building to make use of teamwork feats is low, but I can build the cohort to take them.
Why would anyone *NOT* Take leadership, if they are allowed?
I mean, you get a character two levels lower than yourself in addition to your primary character. How cool is that? Additionally, most GMs allow you to take a monstrous pet or some such.
Firstly, you don't "get" an additional character. The cohorts are NPCs, which means the GM should be playing them. Otherwise, it's a serious gimp on the other players. Which brings us to one good reason why people don't take it. In general, players don't like too many NPCs around, because they get turns, too, and that means the GM is getting most of the action.
Finally, the rules for GMing allow for cohorts without extra feats and class abilities, just as they have since the very first edition of the game. Your GM should probably be handling the extras from top to bottom, which is why I have never liked the Leadership feat, either as a DM/GM or as a player.
|
|
Firstly, you don't "get" an additional character. The cohorts are NPCs, which means the GM should be playing them. Otherwise, it's a serious gimp on the other players. Which brings us to one good reason why people don't take it. In general, players don't like too many NPCs around, because they get turns, too, and that means the GM is getting most of the action.
Finally, the rules for GMing allow for cohorts without extra feats and class abilities, just as they have since the very first edition of the game. Your GM should probably be handling the extras from top to bottom, which is why I have never liked the Leadership feat, either as a DM/GM or as a player.
It doesn't matter to me whether the unwaveringly loyal NPC gets controlled by myself or the GM.
And yes, the GM could stat them out I suppose, but I've never seen a GM who would bother to do that. Not to mention, the player taking the feat and you intentionally making a useless character is just being an antagonistic GM. And if you're not going to make the new cohort crappy just to spite the player, I don't see what difference it makes if the player builds it themselves.
I guess I see it as a shift in game-style thats inherent to the system.
Level 5 brings in flight. Level 7 basically lets the players control small squads.
Sure you might play the NPC out of combat, but youre not going to want to bother to play them in combat - at least when I GM I dont want to - so realistically, in combat the player controls them. Just like their familiars and animal companions.
|
One of my current characters (group is playing through CotCT) is my first and so far only character to take leadership. It fit the character (he is a military officer and sort of a noble by marriage), his cohort is a cleric (as the party lacked a cleric after the PC cleric left the group at about level 4 or 5). Four of the six PCs in this group took leadership, of the others one has a combat capable and intelligent improved familiar and the other always casts summoning spells, so I don’t think anyone really feels over shadowed or slowed down as far as face time at the game table goes.
I have played plenty of characters in Pathfinder who were eligible for but did not take the leadership feat, for the following reasons:
Warforged paladin 10: it was already a large group and had a few tag along or reoccurring NPCs, didn’t want to bog things down in combat with a cohort and / or followers. Also no real base of operations, so nowhere to house low level followers. Plus early in it’s career, the character set in motion a chain of events that led to a young girl and a priest under its protection being hurt / killed – it therefore doesn’t want to be responsible for leading others into dangerous situations.
Elf ranger 1 / wizard 6 / eldritch knight 2: the character is something of a loner, doesn’t form friendships or strong bonds easily. Also chaotic and spontaneous, would prefer not to have ties to hold her back or people to be responsible to / for. Plus she has a fairly low charisma and would be unlikely to inspire people to seek her out and join her. All major party bases are filled (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, bard plus this character) and there are plenty of people able to lay down buffs, so no need for cohorts really.
Human rogue 14: Another chaotic character who really doesn’t want to be responsible to or for anyone. Often scouts and acts alone, doesn’t want a cohort holding him back. Plus he’s kind of selfish, would rather improve / equip himself than someone else – the less people to share the wealth and glory with the better. With a wizard, druid and bard in this party there are also plenty of people to lay down the buffs. I’d rather spend the feats making the character better at what he does.
Human fighter 10: This is a pretty low intelligence character, happier following orders than giving them. He’d rather have someone else tell him when and who to fight and not have to bother or worry about someone who might not be able to hold their own tagging along.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, if a player took Leadership, I would in theory reserve the right to select the available cohorts and followers, build the characters and play them ... but in practice I would leave that all up to the player. No need to give myself as the GM more work than necessary, and no need to nerf a player’s choice of cohort if s/he has spent a feat on them.
I think Beldan needs a nice dog headed boy.
I personally don't take it very often because I want to be awesome. While leader ship is powerful, it doesn't make you awesome. It makes another character who may or may not be awesome.
If I was going to allow Leadership, I'll make it only work for recruiting monsters, not classed NPCs (that means followers are nixed). And also make sure that there is a reason why the PC now has a monster by it's side (perhaps he saved the monster in the previous adventure, won it's favor through might or intellect etc etc). The main reason for this, less paperwork. Just print out the monster stats and you're good to go! Plus, having a monster on your side is kind of cool. :D
It occurs to me that I never checked. Do PF followers/cohorts still follow the same guideline that the AD&D henchmen/hirelings/etc had?
Namely: They're not stupid or suicidal, and trying to get them to be such is a good way to get them to leave?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It occurs to me that I never checked. Do PF followers/cohorts still follow the same guideline that the AD&D henchmen/hirelings/etc had?
Namely: They're not stupid or suicidal, and trying to get them to be such is a good way to get them to leave?
It may not work exactly like AD&D, but the current Leadership does penalize people who treat their followers and cohorts like cannon fodder or nameless mooks. The more of them you lead to their deaths or treat unfairly, less numerous followers and less powerful cohorts come to replace them, if at all.
Leadership can be a double-edged swords on both the GM and PC front. Personally, when I'm GMing someone taking Leadership or taking Leadership myself, I want all those followers to be people, not faceless pawns. But I don't want them to steal table time away from the other players either, so it's a balancing act. One thing's for sure though, treating followers like characters tends to result in players treating them more like people than disposable resources. Hell, in our CotCT game one PC married one of another PC's followers at the end of the campaign.
I've really enjoyed Leadership as RP fuel more than anything else. Secondary appreciation for it is definitely filling in "role" gaps, like divine healing.
One other thought, cohorts actually increase the chances of players getting to use Teamwork Feats, for those so inclined.
Why would anyone *NOT* Take leadership, if they are allowed?
I dont think I've built a character that didnt go for leadership at level 7 since Pathfinder has come out (and with 3.5 I was always GMing).
I mean, you get a character two levels lower than yourself in addition to your primary character. How cool is that? Additionally, most GMs allow you to take a monstrous pet or some such.
I've seen it used for many characters to get a powerful or flying mount.
Or a caster to buff yourself. Or some way to shore up your weaknesses.
In my current case, I went with a sort of packmaster concept. I'm a half-orc Houndmaster Cavalier, and the Gm allowed me to take a giant Worg as my cohort (though power-wise, I'm sure there were better options than a Worg advanced to CR 7). Being a cavalier, and having the wolves, I grabbed a couple teamwork feats and gave them to all 4 characters, so my "pack" works well together.
Why would you take a regular feat at level 7, assuming you have a choice? I can't see any good reasons for it as a GM or a Player.
I'd think it would work like this for party composition, honestly.
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6
7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5I suppose at high levels the cohorts fall behind for those with lower charismas.
Still seems pretty cool to me.
It would show that the choice was pure optimization. Number two it cost money to keep them equipped, and they can be taken out just like a PC can. After so many deaths you will probably start taking hits to your leadership score making them weaker, and weaker until they are useless.
Some GM's also build and/or run the NPC for you.
It occurs to me that I never checked. Do PF followers/cohorts still follow the same guideline that the AD&D henchmen/hirelings/etc had?
Namely: They're not stupid or suicidal, and trying to get them to be such is a good way to get them to leave?
You do lose points to your leadership score for treating them badly. That seems to indicate they are their own person, and not just an extension of the PC's will.
I told my players that Leadership was fine with me, but since the cohorts are NPCs, and NPCs fall under the purview of the GM, I would be making them and playing them. They could give me a general idea of what they were looking for in a cohort (such as a fighter bodyguard, flying mount, crafting wizard, etc.), but otherwise things were left up to me.
No one in my group has ever bothered to take the feat.
Also, cohorts are like a character's loved ones: They are little more than a tool used by the GM to manipulate your character. Real adventurers are orphaned loners for a reason.
I am too lazy to play an extra NPC if I don't have too, and I am the best optimizer in the group so there is no way I am going to make them for a player. I only step in when the NPC does something stupid such as "spring a trap" for the party. Well that has never happened, but if it did I would interfere.
|
Paperwork, tabletime, and more paperwork. When you eat up so much time with your pc and his cohorts that every other player sits there and plays angry birds on their phone, you might as well be playing with yourself. Balance was never an issue with leadership at our table, time was.
If you have no problem with the occasional stinkeye from other players, go ahead.
It is a very fine line you walk with this feat, but if you make it work, well have fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Real adventurers are orphaned loners for a reason.
That's strange, all my characters who had a complete set of parents and were very sociable are not real adventurers, then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Real adventurers are orphaned loners for a reason.That's strange, all my characters who had a complete set of parents and were very sociable are not real adventurers, then?
Of course not. Adventurers do not have loving mothers! They have hardship! Hardship and pain! :P
Because it's the most broken feat since divine metamagic (maybe even more, if you have a cohort cleric using divine metamagic) and most DM will not allow it.
I think it offers some roleplay opportunities but at the expense from other. The player must be careful in interacting with his cohort or risks to spend the session just talking to himself, which he could well do at home (not freaking everybody else out).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course not. Adventurers do not have loving mothers! They have hardship! Hardship and pain! :PReal adventurers are orphaned loners for a reason.That's strange, all my characters who had a complete set of parents and were very sociable are not real adventurers, then?
I gotta tell that to my characters. Uh, I'll let you know how it goes.
;)
Heh Leadership. Some of the most ridiculously bad mechanics in the game all in one feat. You take a feat and you can get some bonus character based on Charisma and your level, how does that make any sense? I don't feel like that is a proper thing to spend a feat on. I also don't think you should be able to cheaply buy yourself ally NPC's; I mean, you only take a feat, no other effort required.
As a GM I allow you to ally with NPC's through roleplaying. I don't like the gamification of such things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it gets abused by a party optimizing so they're essentially doubling their actions and increasing their APL by like +43, turnabout would be fair play.
Maybe have every NPC above level 6 use the Leadership feat so they all have fully optimized cohorts that compliment them perfectly or insane awakened mounts with sorcerer levels of the custom "Haste Debuff" bloodline with a Cure power to boot.
Then base all encounters only on the CR of the NPC's and award zero experience for their cohorts since they're "obviously built into the difficulty of the NPC who had to expend a feat. For instance, this one gave up +4 on init for a spell monkey, and this one has ten less hit points for his haste/entanglebot with UMD and a backpack full of healing wands."
Some of the more evil NPC's could be "roleplayed" as just having gained their leadership feat, greasing up their loyal companions in a combustible material, equipping them only with a necklace of fireballs and convincing them to voluntarily drop their saves (for his fireball or other fire-based spell) when they get into melee range because "it'll increase your DPR by a lot and I can just wand you to full after we beat the heroes."
|
For me, as a player it's just more work. In our current high-level (lvls 19-20) campaign, the GM pretty much forced a lot of us to have a cohort. For instance, my high-level cleric has a lower-level acolyte to "mentor" for the good of the church. However this means that our 7-player group has about 13 characters in it. Combat really drags with all the extra turns. Also it means that I have to pick spells for two characters rather than one, and with the crappy "Vancian" spell-slot system that's a lot of work which I really don't want to have to do.
Also it makes the party unwieldy. With a dozen people it's a small army. You can't stealth into anywhere. You can't slip into town unobtrusively. You need a big inn to house everyone for the night, etc.
Zar I would just ignore the NPC. If the GM wants to end the campaign because he can't control my character that would be on him/her.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Argh. Useless title.
|
|
I've really enjoyed Leadership as RP fuel more than anything else. Secondary appreciation for it is definitely filling in "role" gaps, like divine healing.
One other thought, cohorts actually increase the chances of players getting to use Teamwork Feats, for those so inclined.
Teamwork Feats! I have them, my cohort has them, and my 2 animal companions have them!
It would show that the choice was pure optimization. Number two it cost money to keep them equipped, and they can be taken out just like a PC can. After so many deaths you will probably start taking hits to your leadership score making them weaker, and weaker until they are useless.
Or costing you money as you pay to resurrect fallen comrades.
Some GM's also build and/or run the NPC for you.
I told my players that Leadership was fine with me, but since the cohorts are NPCs, and NPCs fall under the purview of the GM, I would be making them and playing them. They could give me a general idea of what they were looking for in a cohort (such as a fighter bodyguard, flying mount, crafting wizard, etc.), but otherwise things were left up to me.
I'm okay with that, if thats what the GM wants. In our game, the GM wanted me to build it myself because he couldnt be bothered. He runs him out of combat, but wants me to do the combat. Works for me. And it keeps things interesting.
Also, cohorts are like a character's loved ones: They are little more than a tool used by the GM to manipulate your character. Real adventurers are orphaned loners for a reason.
Hmm. My current character treats his Giant Worg Fighter cohort the way most people treat the rest of their parties.And he treats the rest of hte party slightly worse than that.
The worg demanded his own share of the treasure (GM made him do it) and I track his inventory separately.Its another adventurer in the party, which I control in combat.
Maybe have every NPC above level 6 use the Leadership feat so they all have fully optimized cohorts that compliment them perfectly or insane awakened mounts with sorcerer levels of the custom "Haste Debuff" bloodline with a Cure power to boot.
Then base all encounters only on the CR of the NPC's and award zero experience for their cohorts since they're "obviously built into the difficulty of the NPC who had to expend a feat. For instance, this one gave up +4 on init for a spell monkey, and this one has ten less hit points for his haste/entanglebot with UMD and a backpack full of healing wands."
Some of the more evil NPC's could be "roleplayed" as just having gained their leadership feat, greasing up their loyal companions in a combustible material, equipping them only with a necklace of fireballs and convincing them to voluntarily drop their saves (for his fireball or other fire-based spell) when they get into melee range because "it'll increase your DPR by a lot and I can just wand you to full after we beat the heroes."
lmao. I dont think I've ever seen the bottom behavior, even in the players.
As for the rest, that's a decent way to cut down on the XP you give out, considering that the NPC doesnt take a share of XP (he really should).
We dont use combat XP though. This gm is a "Okay everybody levels today" GM, and I give out xp/session in a very shadowrun style. I have a checklist, and you get XP based on what in the checklist you managed. At higher levels, the checklist provides bigger rewards to compensate.
For me, as a player it's just more work. In our current high-level (lvls 19-20) campaign, the GM pretty much forced a lot of us to have a cohort. For instance, my high-level cleric has a lower-level acolyte to "mentor" for the good of the church. However this means that our 7-player group has about 13 characters in it. Combat really drags with all the extra turns. Also it means that I have to pick spells for two characters rather than one, and with the crappy "Vancian" spell-slot system that's a lot of work which I really don't want to have to do.
Having a cohort forced on you when you dont want one would be annoying. Sorry to hear it. Particularly a Cohort you dont want.
Also it makes the party unwieldy. With a dozen people it's a small army. You can't stealth into anywhere. You can't slip into town unobtrusively. You need a big inn to house everyone for the night, etc.
Well, I'm a Halforc with 3 wolves. 1 of which is a worg, and one of which is just giant. They all have stealth, as do I. They dont have alot of skillpoints, so its not maxed out, but they have it. I think we could slip into town just as unobtrusively as any other adventuring party.
As for Inns, it hasn't come up yet, but yeah, I'd either get a big room, or I'd sleep outside at the edge of town.
Our group tends to approach it a little differently.
Leadership ALLOWS you to get a cohort. It doesn't automatically grant you one. You would still have to find and recruit him/her/it/whatever. So with our group it is usually someone we saved, spared, or befreinded that one of decided it would be cool to have around.
Also, unless you make them just to survive the 2+ levels lower can make them pretty squishy. I don't like having to constantly pay to get them raised.
Depending upon my char and the campaign I also often don't have the cash to equip them. If you don't gear them up, they seem to be constantly being taken over or taken out. Or they can't accomplish much of anything.
Also, any complicated build can slow down combat as others have mentioned.
Plus as others have mentioned, I'm often too lazy to try and do a good job keeping track of another character.
I don't do it often, but what usually seems to work best for me is a body guard for my squishy types. Just a few items to help his survivability and saves. He's not supposed to get in combat except to keep me out of it. So he usually just stands next to me ready to intercept a charge.
Firstly, you don't "get" an additional character. The cohorts are NPCs, which means the GM should be playing them. Otherwise, it's a serious gimp on the other players. Which brings us to one good reason why people don't take it. In general, players don't like too many NPCs around, because they get turns, too, and that means the GM is getting most of the action.
I let my players run their cohorts. If I had to run every cohort as an NPC, I would consider banning the feat. I have enough NPCs to manage already.
One reason that only one player in my campaign has taken Leadership is because I essentially give the feat away for free. The players can already persuade NPCs to aid them through roleplaying, since the heroes take on noble quests to save the town or kingdom and have taken efforts to stay friendly with local authorities. The Leadership feat merely shifts control of the extra character from the GM to the player.
However, I think the main reason that most player characters have not taken Leadership is because the player's goal in Pathfinder is not to win the most difficult encounters possible. The player's goal is to show off his or her awesome character. A cohort diverts attention from the main character. A leader pulling outstanding moves because his loyal cleric butler Jeeves patches him up after combat or his loyal monk servant Kato deliberately steps into dangerous positions to set up flanking would look like a pampered aristocrat, not a glorious hero. Even Batman has the sense to leave Alfred behind at Wayne Manor.
To everybody who is advocating Teamwork Feat buying. If either yourself or your cohort is a Cavalier then everyone can use them.
To everybody who is advocating Teamwork Feat buying. If either yourself or your cohort is a Cavalier then everyone can use them.
I thought only the cavalier could use them as if everyone else had them?!? Maybe I'm remembering wrong. I'll have to check.
|
To everybody who is advocating Teamwork Feat buying. If either yourself or your cohort is a Cavalier then everyone can use them.I thought only the cavalier could use them as if everyone else had them?!? Maybe I'm remembering wrong. I'll have to check.
I believe that's the Inquisitor that can use them as if everyone had them.
Solo Tactics (Ex): At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor's allies are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats. Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves. The allies' positioning and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus.
A Cavalier can give all allies in range the feat for a few rounds.
Tactician (Ex): At 1st level, a cavalier receives a teamwork feat as a bonus feat. He must meet the prerequisites for this feat. As a standard action, the cavalier can grant this feat to all allies within 30 feet who can see and hear him. Allies retain the use of this bonus feat for 3 rounds plus 1 round for every two levels the cavalier possesses. Allies do not need to meet the prerequisites of these bonus feats. The cavalier can use this ability once per day at 1st level, plus one additional time per day at 5th level and for every 5 levels thereafter.
Leadership feat: disallowed by me. Hire them, diplo them, intimidate them, it is an ongoing process that takes RP.
The feat was always a failed experiment, and removing its GM-option status is possibly my biggest gripe about Pathfinder.
Argh. Useless title.Hovering over the thread title previews the first few sentences of the first post. It's very helpful.
It's a matter of principle, and that doesn't work on smartphones. I'd much rather there not be a ton of threads where you have no clue what it's about from the title. What does this thread gain from not saying "Why wouldn't anyone take Leadership if they could?" The only thing I can think of is that it piques interest and gets people in, which is one of those sleazy marketing tricks.
<3 DH but I really dislike this trend that's been popping up lately. Maybe it's confirmation bias.
Leadership feat: disallowed by me. Hire them, diplo them, intimidate them, it is an ongoing process that takes RP.
The feat was always a failed experiment, and removing its GM-option status is possibly my biggest gripe about Pathfinder.
That is why our group takes the view we do. Leadership ALLOWS you to get a cohort. It doesn't automatically grant you one. You would still have to find and recruit him/her/it/whatever. So with our group it is usually someone we saved, spared, or befriended that one of us decided it would be cool or useful to have around.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Leadership feat: disallowed by me. Hire them, diplo them, intimidate them, it is an ongoing process that takes RP.
The feat was always a failed experiment, and removing its GM-option status is possibly my biggest gripe about Pathfinder.
That is why our group takes the view we do. Leadership ALLOWS you to get a cohort. It doesn't automatically grant you one. You would still have to find and recruit him/her/it/whatever. So with our group it is usually someone we saved, spared, or befriended that one of us decided it would be cool or useful to have around.
This is the same approach our group uses. It's a feat, not a Summon spell.
|
Reaper Miniatures
|
In 3 different Pathfinder APs, only 2 characters of 14 have chosen to take Leadership.
For both characters, it suits their concept.
One is the General in Kingmaker, who made his Major a cohort. When his Leadership score increases, he plans to add an escort of 3rd level warriors with a portion of the leadership points. Yeah, they'll be worthless in combat by then (around level 16), but it's about style.
The other is my Oracle, who dotes upon his riding dog so much I spent the money for the scroll of awaken (as discussed in other threads) and then took the feat to make him a cohort. Aroden, the Saint Bernard, loyal companion of a very insane Oracle. Or possibly real deity turned canine in the worst 'returning to fulfill prophecy, until that darn typo hit me' mistake in history. :)
Nobody else in the two groups with cohorts even asked.
EDIT: re: "leadership granting 'instant Cohort, no RP needed'": In both cases the relevant Cohort already existed as either an NPC or as the "purchased in an RP scene and with character gold mount". It was never a free "here's a new addition to the party, his name is steve, he's loyal to me."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs will constrain it as they like, but I think it has no business being a feat.
I don't usually play at 7th level or higher.
|
|
As a player I have only had one character take leadership and that was in our current Kingmaker campaign. Our party is melee heavy and needed an arcane caster. Then worked with the rest of the party and the GM to bring in the arcane caster.
As a GM I limit its use based on table size, basically Cohorts take up slots to max of 6 PCs/Cohorts. This helps limit some the of the table chaos at a large table and also means I have a set limit to build encounters around. I also limit what races/classes are available and require some RP as too why the character in question is suddenly getting this follower.