| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR
Leadership is about like a Summoner. It's got a lot of complex moving parts, and it's easy to abuse.
If I really trust the player, I just tell them to make the cohort when they hit level 6, and I bring it in as an NPC and at 7, they become a cohort.
If I don't trust the player (either from lack of experience about the system, or they've had problems in the past with not interpreting rules correct making their characters, or because they've actively min/max'd their character six ways from sunday and tried to get RAGELANCEPOUNCESYNTHSUMMONERTIEFLINGHALFFIEND into my core races game), then I make the NPC catered to their desires (I would like someone to help with melee, we're weak on that, and maybe who's good at stealth).
And yes, I've read SKRs feelings. I respect SKR, but his views are not divine law. :) Until it makes it into the FAQ, it's just his personal view. And even if it was in the FAQ, I'd just house rule it.
With all the arguments against and for having the leadership in a game, I notice that the problem is usually a player trying to gain a slave or a mindless drone.
I think that no DM should allow an NPC to get treated that way, but if a player does not abuse a 'second' character, let the player manage the NPC, while still keeping a close eye out off course.
When creating a Cohort I'd like to let the player do the work with final approval of the GM with reasonable heads up (that's not: hey I just finished the cohort for the game tomorrow). I always insist in some background story for the character and expect the same for a cohort.
It's possible to reward the player making an NPC using the hero rules and threatening him/her with making one yourself using the NPC rules if he/she doesn't make a realistic character. It's likely that the player nerves his/her NPC more then you would in order to get the stronger character. I think it's vital to discuss in advance what type of cohort a player wants, so you can guide him/her in the right direction if needs be.
So in general, some extra work will come the GM's way with the Leadership feat. However if the GM can get the player to do most of the work while remaining an overview to keep things balanced, it could really work out.
And as always: the GM can refuse the use of the feat.
There is no reason why a Cohort would not charge full book price on a crafted magic item. They are people and need money just like anyone else. The advantage of having a crafting Cohort is to have the undivided attention of a rare craftsman, which is frankly worth the feat.
The only time I would assume the Cohort charges half is if the magic item is a vital plot magguffin that affects the Cohort or if it is a item for the exclusive use of a cohort or a follower.
Good point. Remember that the cohort's magical gear is accounted for separately from the party, would probably go the other way around too.
Some feats are more powerful/useful than others and peoples opinions differ about which are more powerful. I personally love the leadership feat. It takes me back to the old days of eagerly waiting to become a lord or ranger lord so I could have some cool followers. Can it be abused...yes. Does it also have built in limitations (NPC, GM control and such)...yes. Is it super fun and full of possibility?...a big yes. For players and GM's that like world building together nothing does it like the leadership feat. Suddenly a player can have followers, lackeys, great friends, warriors, priests...the player can defend that stronghold or equip that temple or have contacts all over the city, etc.
|
The problem is that you're allowing the player to "make" a cohort. Nooooooooooooooooo~.
I allow Leadership but they have to find, inspire, negotiate, roleplay, pay for, and motivate their cohorts. Same with followers. The Half-Orc barbarian eventually became chieftain of a village and got them as followers - his cohort fought him to the death for the right to rule, at one point (him being forced to kill his loyal companion was one of the most dramatic roleplaying moments of the campaign).
Cohorts are not "PC Jr." They're NPCs like any other - they just happen to be the PC's employees.
The problem is that you're allowing the player to "make" a cohort. Nooooooooooooooooo~.
I've never had a problem with that. If the PC wants a pirate cohort with an eye patch, I see it as kind of a dick move on my part for me to say, "No, you get an elf like Legolas instead!"
That's one of the reasons I dislike the "wealth = magic items = power" paradigm inherent in 3.X. But that's a topic for another thread.
The GM creates NPCs, the character chooses their cohort from among the NPCs who would be interested in following the character.
You don't get to custom make your cohort. You don't have to pick any particular cohort your GM foists on you. Of course, it's very helpful to give input to the GM about the sort of cohort you're looking for, to avoid an endless string of rejects.
Okay, so here is my situation. I have a player who took the Leadership feat. After doing so, he made a cohort, who was a wizard with every single item creation feat. After doing so, they put her to work making them item after item after item for half price.
I believe this to be a broken use of Leadership.
The way I understand Leadership is that your cohort is an ally, who helps you when/if they can, but they are not mindless robots that are slaves to your will. They can willfully refuse to do something if it conflicts with their interests or they simply don't have the time due to personal commitments.
I have a problem with a player taking a single feat and then having access to 6-7 feats ALL THE TIME afterwards. This is wrong to me. She has no other feats then item creation and all her skill points are put into crafting skills.
What do you guys think? Am I wrong or is this clearly an abuse of a feat?
I think of the cohort as being a follower of the PC, I as the GM, will pick a random follower for the PC and I will assign half of feats that they will find useful. The Player can then assign the other half of the feats however they want whether it's item creation or otherwise.
I do not allow the PC to put the cohort on the sidelines to be a crafting machine only, the cohort didn't join the PC to be their slave, they joined to follow that PC into battle and earn some fame of their own.
I role-play as the cohort, meaning that they will follow the PC wherever, but they DO have a mind of their own and won't be the sacrificial lamb for no reason whatsoever.
The PC can control them in battle and roll for them, but again I'm not going to allow them to say something like, "I'm leaving the cohort to take on that ancient red dragon we stumbled upon while me and the others run off..."
The reasons are as you stated, if you allow a PC to dictate everything for a cohort they will abuse it, by doing it my way they don't get to abuse that poor cohort and make them into their own personal item creation slave.
The last time I took the leadership feat we had a ship, and I designed my cohort to have max ranks in Profession Sailor and spells to assist with controlling a ship. I made all my followers to be experts with, gasp-- max ranks in profession sailor so they could be the crew.
Then I took the cohort along for battle about half the time, and the other half left her to control the ship-- is this an abuse of leadership? Seems like doing things like this is what its there for. . .
@Nathanael - I wouldn't say so. You made good, sound, and tactical decisions regarding the cohort. You didn't make her your slave to sit around and make you things, you took her along on expeditions and you relied upon her (and her crew) to get you safely from point A to point B on the ship where you and your fellow PCs may have failed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NPC's can have Leadership with craftbot cohorts, as well. Or, you know, max ranks in sunder...
Seriously, though. NPC's don't sell stuff at cost. Period. "Hey, I like what you're about, man. Can I follow you around, and subscribe to your newsletter?"
PC: "Sure thing, man. Will you sell me that fancy sword at half price?"
NPC: "Wow. No. I mean, I like you and all. But, business is business. You want me to hold that torch?"
PC: "What the heck, dude? I spent a feat on you!"
NPC: "Umm... I'm not sure what that means, but the sword is not negotiable. You want me to watch the horses?"
PC: "Listen, buddy. You're my cohort. You do what I say."
NPC: "Whoa! Hold up! This isn't going to work out. I think I'll take my business elsewhere. I appreciate you statting me up and all. Peace."
PC: "This is totally unfair! Why isn't this guy my abject slave?"
[ . . . P]layer who took the Leadership feat[ . . . ]he made a cohort[ . . . ]a wizard with every single item creation feat. After doing so, they put her to work making them item after item after item for half price.
This is nice and all, except there is one VERY important problem, this character still needs to see combat to gain experience. She doesn't just level up with the PCs, she has her own XP.
Also, if the cohort dies then that is a PERMANENT -2 penalty to leadership, per cohort.
Crafting an item takes around a week, and making it magic takes longer. Not to mention it has to be master-crafted, and the cohort has to be making rolls not just "doing it".
If they have the cohort making items then do things that force them to draw away from the city. If they are not there to pick up their items then, oh well.
Cohorts don't work for free, they WANT to go out and adventure with the party! They want the fame, the fortune, the women, and if the Player just wants them to sit at home crafting then they are going to have problems.
One idea is to have the cohort decide, on his own, that he is going to go join the heroes on their quest weather they like it or not! He joins them as a cloaked figure, never revealing his scarved and hooded face until he is injured or the quest if done and they are headding back.
What do you guys think? Am I wrong or is this clearly an abuse of a feat?
Pretty much every line of text in the rulebook can be abused in an RPG. That's why we have GMs, to decide when the rulebook is actually wrong and overrule accordingly.
|
|
The problem is that you're allowing the player to "make" a cohort. Nooooooooooooooooo~.I've never had a problem with that. If the PC wants a pirate cohort with an eye patch, I see it as kind of a dick move on my part for me to say, "No, you get an elf like Legolas instead!"
Oh, I wouldn't do that. I'd give him the most glorious pirate bodyguard he can find. It just wouldn't be a selfless pirate with six item creation feats, no desire for payment, and an obsessive desire to scribe scrolls for free for eighty weeks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so here is my situation. I have a player who took the Leadership feat. After doing so, he made a cohort, who was a wizard with every single item creation feat. After doing so, they put her to work making them item after item after item for half price.
I believe this to be a broken use of Leadership.
Not particularly. Typical market value for any treasure that your party finds is 50%. So if they find a magic staff worth 100,000 gp and they choose to sell it, they get 50,000 gp back. So magic items that the cohort makes may be half off, but you're only getting half the usual value for the big-ticket treasures anyway.
The way I understand Leadership is that your cohort is an ally, who helps you when/if they can, but they are not mindless robots that are slaves to your will. They can willfully refuse to do something if it conflicts with their interests or they simply don't have the time due to personal commitments.
Working eight hours a day, the length of a typical, American job, is not being a "mindless robot who is a slave to your will." He's got an easy eight hours left in his day to do whatever he wants.
I have a problem with a player taking a single feat and then having access to 6-7 feats ALL THE TIME afterwards. This is wrong to me. She has no other feats then item creation and all her skill points are put into crafting skills.
People hyper specialize in the real world too. A character like this wouldn't be uncommon and honestly, grabbing a crafting character is a very non-intrusive way to use Leadership. Your player could have built a death NPC and effectively upped the strength of the party significantly.
What do you guys think? Am I wrong or is this clearly an abuse of a feat?
Personally, I think you're wrong. You charged your PC a feat (a very hefty investment) to grab a cohort and he put that cohort to work helping his party. A crafting cohort is one of the best party-friendly uses for a cohort that a character can grab, and from a realistic perspective, seeking out a famous artist or crafter or whatever is exactly what a party of heroes SHOULD do. It is very realistic to patron someone. It simply sounds like you're not requiring your PCs to patron this cohort.
If I was in your shoes and I was bothered by this, here's what I would do:
— Grab a copy of Ultimate Campaign.
— Implement the Downtime System's rules.
— First, require the PC party to build some sort of base of operations for the cohort to dwell in. According to the Downtime Rules, gp production for an organization is reduced by half if it doesn't have a headquarters to base itself out of, so you could easily state that the cohort takes twice as long to craft anything because he doesn't have a place to work for you. (Historically, patrons would build homes for their artists, composers, and crafters.)
— Second, have the cohort charge the PC / his party a minor gold fee for his services. I would treat the cohort like a manager and have the cohort charge 5 gp for each day he works, plus he charges 5% of an item's cost for his services. For example, if an item costs 10,000 gp to craft (price 20,000 gp), the cohort will ask for 11,000 gp and keep the extra 1,000 gp for himself. This way, you can have the cohort saving up his own money and as the PCs return to their new base of operations to check on their crafting buddy, maybe they'll see new changes to the cohort's person to reflect his new finances.
— Third, I would have the cohort negotiate his work week. According to the Downtime system, a typical work week for most characters is five days, with two days off in between. (Usually a holy day and a day of rest.) In this manner, using the cohort to craft is a little bit slower than having the PC craft by himself because the cohort is an "artist" and is no particular hurry. If the PCs try to force the cohort to work on his days off, well obviously they're going to have to pay the cohort overtime (either time and a half [7.5 gp] or double time [10 gp]).
Together, this will give your PCs the sense of being important enough to have to go through all of the little details of patroning another character. And in my experience, implementing Downtime is a GREAT way to get your players interested in spending gp on other things. Once you tell them that they have a base of operations, well, they're going to want to make their quarters nice. And then after you have the BBEG attack their base, they're going to start spending ridiculous amounts of money trying to bolster its defenses. Maybe they'll decide to hire some assistants to help make more money. Maybe they'll expand into other professions. Maybe they'll end up being the largest business juggernaut that your world has ever known!
Downtime is awesome.
I AM A POWERFUL NECROMANCER! Mwahahaha!
Its a necromancer! GET HIM! Grab your torches and pitchforks! The tar and the feathers!
Wait till next thread
Think of this thread
Think of the threads gone by
Bye-bye is too late
"Flag Post" is heartache
Bye-bye, the threads gone by