Abusing Leadership Feat


Advice

1 to 50 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

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.

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?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Using Leadership for most things is an abuse of the Leadership feat. If you don't like it, just ban it. It's a pretty common choice.

Dark Archive

Yeah, leadership is probably the cheeziest most abusive feat choice there is.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is so simple.
PC goes out adventuring, wizard cohort stays behind, working on magic items.
PC comes back, finds wizard dead and magic items are stolen.
Thief fights the party with those magic items.

Or, alternatively, drop his leadership score. That schould teach him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So what does the NPC get out of this deal how are they even paying for their food/shelter and whatnot if they actually do nothing but make things at cost for the PCs.

Also the cohort is an NPC you create it not them unless you really trust the player or they lay out what they are going for.

I usually have them give me what they want as in melee ranged caster healer. A general idea on class and what not then present them with 2-4 samples based on how specific they got and let them pick.


if you read leadership there is nothing in it's design that says the player gets to design a secondary character. it's an npc most games I've played the player controlls the cohort but.. ultimately who the cohort is and what it does is up to the gm.

really the best scenario is for the dm to make one as a collaborative process with the Pc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

players normally ask for leadership, thinking/knowing it is broken, if you are a little bit more strict, like using these suggestions above, players are sad.
Offer him to take another feat first, then stop the abuse.

But yes, you're totally right that the use you describe is way stronger than any feat should be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Renvale987 wrote:

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?

They are intended to adventure with the party, and help the players. Some GM's however design the NPC for the player. It is also a good idea to ask them why they are taking the feat before allowing them to do so.

I always(a lot) have my bad guys spy on the party. Going after the party crafter which is the equivalent as going after the support in the military is a good strategy.


Never had a GM allow Leadership, but I'm aware enough of the game and seen enough posts on forums to understand just how dumb it is if it's not tightly controlled.

The concept of it is nice - getting followers and having a buddy dedicated to helping your character, simply because he believes in him. However, if your players are willing and attempting to abuse it (which it sounds like your player is... no offense to them, they might not realize you aren't down with their use of it, but you said it yourself, they are getting a ton of feats for the cost of one, magic items at half price, and possibly even a way of making money, if they have the cohort set up a shop or something).

The posts above mine deal with the "physical" aspects of controlling the feat - GM creating and controlling the cohort, having enemies targeting the crafter (think of cutting off enemy supply lines), etc. These are a good way of dealing with players who want to use it as cheese.

If things get out of hand, you can always strip it away from them.

However, if you have some players who are honestly interested in the roleplay aspect and are willing to abide by the intended mechanical effects (that is, not overpowered), then you can always sit down and talk to them. Tell them you are willing to provide something akin to the feat through roleplay in game. Have their character go into a city, start saving the day left and right. People will naturally begin to like them and follow them. Eventually something like a cohort will appear. If the character isn't a hero type, then you have underworld networks or people who are simply attracted to like minded-ness. Plenty of options.


Most people who ban the Leadership feat seem to forget that it's a heavy roleplay feat. The player can design the cohort however they want, but it's the GM's toy to roleplay with. While the cohort should always be working to help the leader, that doesn't mean they're just a tool; they're a person/creature with their own wants and needs as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your lucky he's only trying to make use of the "cohort" side of the leadership feat.

You can do an awful lot with followers who are created as one shot ponies to be very good at one thing and one thing only, who are then left back at base to get on with the job.

1. Alchemist: Can make potions at first level and supply the party with alchemical items.

2. Bard: Intelligence build bards for all those knowledge checks. A charisma Bard skill focused and traited, for perform string instruments, with a few skill points in knowledge engineering and profession architect, combined with Lyre a building is one man construction crew who would be able to play all day for hundreds of man hours of work once per week.

3. Animal trainer: Do the players really ever have time to do this themselves? A specialised animal trainer can do it for them

There are loads of ways in which the intelligent/optimising/abusive player can maximise the use of support staff followers.


Renvale987 wrote:
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.

Personally, this is why I don't like Leadership as a feat. Take one feat, get more. It reminds me of Tri-Stat's point-multiplier abuse (which even I abused).

I don't have as much of a problem letting players just simply have a pair of characters, as long as everyone can do it. Saying that a backup character with PC levels is equal to one feat on a higher level character is... kind of insulting, really.

Ask the player (preferably one-on-one) why they are doing it, and why they think it is necessary. If it's going to be very disruptive, let them retrain it- if they fight you tooth and nail, turn it into a plot hook with the above "murder the crafter" idea.

That said, I've played a Mystic Theurge character (back in 3.5, when Theurgic Crafter was available) whose main concept was a magic item merchant with the dream of crafting items to rival those in famous tales, and adventured to get rare materials and reverse-engineer other items. A crafter can be a fun character to play if that is what you are going for (which is doubtlessly not your case).


Neo2151 wrote:
Most people who ban the Leadership feat seem to forget that it's a heavy roleplay feat. The player can design the cohort however they want, but it's the GM's toy to roleplay with. While the cohort should always be working to help the leader, that doesn't mean they're just a tool; they're a person/creature with their own wants and needs as well.

This is the equivalent of paying a feat for the right to design a GM-NPC. That is... bizarre, really.

I don't disagree on the counts of them being an independent entity in role-play, but if the player has paid a permanent character resource, they probably expect more of a say in the cohort's actions than just character creation.


Renvale987 wrote:

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?

You know rule 1 the GM is always right? But that's trumped by Rule 0 - everyone must have fun.

Rule 2 is ban Leadership.

---

Or the GM designs it. Or the GM designs and controls it.


What is abusive varies by game also. I forgot to state that earlier. If it is an issue then let the player know. Otherwise "deal" with the NPC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
the David wrote:

This is so simple.

PC goes out adventuring, wizard cohort stays behind, working on magic items.
PC comes back, finds wizard dead and magic items are stolen.
Thief fights the party with those magic items.

Or, alternatively, drop his leadership score. That schould teach him.

this is so wrong. dont abuse your power as a gm. the players will just loose their fun to play the game.

dont hate the players hate the game. as a gm u have to balance the game by your own. but not by punishing the players.


This is blatant abuse by the player.

Although there are worse abuses of Leadership, such as the pyramid scheme.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An alternative to killing the cohort is to reduce treasure drops until you feel that the PCs' wealth-by-level is more in keeping with a group who has invested one feat in crafting.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

This is how I run leadership:

The feat doesn't exist. If the story calls for a cohort to accompany the party, an NPC will join in but nobody spends a feat. If the party accumulates followers, that's done by hiring them, not by spending any feats.


puksone wrote:
the David wrote:
...Or, alternatively, drop his leadership score. That schould teach him.
this is so wrong. dont abuse your power as a gm. the players will just loose their fun to play the game...

If you don't present it as stated "I'm teaching you a lesson" then it will probably be ok.

Say something more like, "Reginald joined you to journey and see the world. He is unhappy being slave labor for the last 13 weeks. His resistance to this treatment is equivalent to a drop in you cohort leadership of 2 points."


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Admittedly I don't have much of an issue as both a player and a GM with Leadership and it's uses, including making money and having the craft wizard. I like giving my players the chance to make organizations and guilds. It's why I make use of the Stronghold Builder's Guide and why I love Kingmaker so much. I feel that the players should get more than shiny gold and gems and headbands of +2 intelligence.

Like it's been said before, the GM should at least make the NPC for the player. I personally control my player's cohort since they are still NPCs, but I treat them as friendly. Here's an example of a craft wizard I had in a game about a year ago.

His name was Olwyn the Rune Forger. He's a burly dwarf that has taken to the art of making magic items. It's a tough job so sometimes, he takes a week off. It's great money too so he can afford the good life for himself and his clan. He works with the PCs as a personal blacksmith and, because he likes them, he makes them the items and sells it to them at 75% of the cost. Hell, a dwarf's gotta eat, right?

With your Crafting Wizard, remember these key points:

- Crafting items cost half, but no one said that the NPC only charges half. Give them a discount, sure, but don't give them half off. Of course, let the players know that before they invest in Leadership.

- If you decide that the craft wizard will charge full price for it, let the players know before they invest in Leadership. It's a bit more on the harsh side, but the players still get the benefit of it being made while they are off adventuring.

- Wizards are people too. They might want to go traveling and go on holiday. I mean really, who wants to stick around in a stuffy smith all their life?

- Lower the amount of treasure they find accordingly to make up for the value of magic items they are getting.

Ultimately, talking to your player is the best idea. But taking away the cohort and punishing the player will not work and they will hold it against you. And man, can an angry player ruin a game :)

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna go against the grain here. Leadership is probably overpowered for a Feat, but at heart it's no more broken than a Druid's Animal Companion, and certainly doesn't need to be banned completely.

Now, that said, by creating a completely Craft-focused character, they're effectively reducing his utility as an ally in combat, while simultaneously limiting their item creation to somewhat lower caster level stuff (well, at least a bit). Still, I can see disallowing that particular cohort (a Crafts specialist isn't the sort of fellow you'd expect to beome a cohort to an adventurer), or having them charge 75% of the book price as a labor cost. Or even disallowing the Feat entirely.

What you shouldn't do is anything resembling a bait and switch. Do not let the player buy a Feat, thinkng it will work a certain way, then suddenly hit them with penalties like the Leadership score reduction above just for doing what they planned on doing. Whatever you do tell them up front what you are doing and why.


You do know that most magic item crafting does not have a CL requirement, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love the Leadership feat because it creates so many opportunities for role-playing. And to those people here saying "don't hate the player, hate the game"? I say the game is NOT boiled down to what the rules say but what playing style the group as a whole think is okay.

As a GM I would assume that my players aren't morons and will treat their cohort well. If they then stuffed the cohort in a room and told it "make magic items for us" I would RP the cohort as being a bit... disappointed at the very least (pissed off at the worst). When the cohort gets sick of being treated like a factory, maybe he leaves? Maybe he decides to stop being a cohort and go off on his own adventures? This is perfectly viable and is not abuse of GM power - it's simply playing NPCs as non.player CHARACTERS with personalities.

If, however, your group plays hack'n'slash and don't really care about RP, feel free to just ban the feat after having a talk with your group. Because in a game with virtually no RP focus, this feat is the equivalent of several other feats, as you say.


You should decide through RP who becomes his cohort, based off of a balance that you determine


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
puksone wrote:
the David wrote:
...Or, alternatively, drop his leadership score. That schould teach him.
this is so wrong. dont abuse your power as a gm. the players will just loose their fun to play the game...

If you don't present it as stated "I'm teaching you a lesson" then it will probably be ok.

Say something more like, "Reginald joined you to journey and see the world. He is unhappy being slave labor for the last 13 weeks. His resistance to this treatment is equivalent to a drop in you cohort leadership of 2 points."

There is a penalty for the Leader moving around a lot.

Everything above that is punishment by the GM.

What is so wrong about using some Wizard to craft items?
Would it be better to get a free Bard that is your buff B1tch?
Would it be better to get a free Cleric that is your Healbot?
Would it be better to ge a free Hound Archon and adding class levels so you have your Meatshield?

I mean isn't the whole purpose of Leadership to get a cool Cohort that adds to your power?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One thing that a lot of GMs forget (and that players almost always "conveniently" overlook) is that cohorts and followers are clearly stated to be NPCs.

Who makes NPCs? The GM.
Who controls NPCs? The GM.

At best, the player taking the feat should be allowed a brief description of what kind of cohort and followers they are trying to attract, such as "an artificer" or "a thieves' guild for me to run" or "xenophobic human cultists."

NPCs also have crappier ability scores and generally start with far less gear than PCs. Sure the PCs can equip their cohort with better stuff, but then that's gear that isn't going to the party.

Balance with leadership can be maintained. You just gotta not break the rules.


May I suggest getting this? It's only a buck. It should easily deal with your problem while still allowing the player to have some options with Leadership. I know it can be difficult for some people to handle retroactive rules changes so make sure that you allow them to change out the feat if they don't like the new options.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've never liked the leadership feat. I've only had one character who ever took it, and that was a character whose goal was to basically form his own kingdom. His cohort and followers essentially were his proxy while adventuring and ran his fiefdom for him. They didn't have time to craft things and were too busy to adventure with him. But he had a nice castle to come back to between adventures, and his fiefdom gave him a nice income, most of which he used to invest back into his lands (building bridges, mills, aqueducts, etc.)

Having said thst, I do think the intent of the feat is to have lower level NPCs who travel with and help the PC. The "healbot" or "meatshield" cohorts seem to me to be precisely what the intent of the feat is. The PC has to equip them with decent enough gear to be survivable, so it's costing him some cash, and the lower level limits are intended to keep the cohort from being a major impact in battle. But there are ways to boost them to be significant party members. And putting cohorts or followers into combat is a good way to get them killed, which will naturally reduce the PC's leadership score.

Regardless of what the PC wants the cohort or followers to do, they are still NPCs and should be role played by the GM. "But I don't want to make magic items day after day at cost, I want to be a great hero like you!" is a perfectly reasonable response for an NPC who is asked to become a magic item factory. If the PC then starts berating or intimidating the cohort into doing what he wants, that counts as "cruelty" and hurts his leadership score. Plus there is no reason the GM can't role play the cohort to say "Screw this, I thought you were a hero, not a giant pig-faced ass!"

It is possible that an NPC could be simply interested in making magic items, and would work for the PC to make them. But they are still sentient self-motivated beings who would use their abilities to make a living for their own families. Cohorts and followers aren't slaves, they are cohorts and followers.

When I am the GM I rule that cohorts generally need to spend time with the PC. They are "cohorts" and the most common definition of cohort is "companion", which means they don't want to be the PC's slave, they want to be the PC's sidekick. They want to be Bucky to the PC's Captain America, or Robin to the PC's Batman. Being left behind to toil over mindless tasks at the PCs whim is not what they had in mind when "joining" the PC. So if they are left behind enough, they will eventually leave, perhaps even to join a different adventurer. An exception to this would be if a cohort is left behind as a proxy for the PC and who has sufficient autonomy and reward that being the PC's proxy is a fun and rewarding task that allows the cohort to truly feel like he/she is bonding with the PC.

I'm sure I will now be branded a "player fun-killer control-freak GM!!!" but I don't give a rat's ass. That's just how I do it. Nobody has ever complained.

Liberty's Edge

Malfus wrote:
You do know that most magic item crafting does not have a CL requirement, right?

Uh...look over the magic item rules. It most certainly all does, you can just ignore it (like most other crafting prerequisites), by increasing the DC of the crafting check (which, with a focused crafter makes it kind of a moot point a lot of the time). All of which is why I said "(well, at least a bit)". It probably won't matter often, but it certainly could come up. Especially if you wind up wanting him to craft something that he doesn't meet several other prerequisites on.


I actually like the NPC this way. He's working in the same way as Q for James Bond. Group's quartermaster makes their gadgets while indulging it's technical genius in safety. It also creates potential hooks to quest for ingredients AND eliminates the need to have a magic shop at every corner... just inform the PCs that whatever their cohort makes is part of the wealth per level or give them normal prices, because the rest of the money are used for research, orkshop upkeep and pay for the NPC.


Alienfreak wrote:

...

There is a penalty for the Leader moving around a lot.

Everything above that is punishment by the GM.

What is so wrong about using some Wizard to craft items?
Would it be better to get a free Bard that is your buff B1tch?
Would it be better to get a free Cleric that is your Healbot?
Would it be better to ge a free Hound Archon and adding class levels so you have your Meatshield?

I mean isn't the whole purpose of Leadership to get a cool Cohort that adds to your power?

The penalty for moving around only applies to followers not cohorts.

A person would become a follower due to things like following a religious leaders, love, training, great pay, protection, exciting adventures, etc... No, I don't know all the details, but from the description at the begining of the thread. It doesn't sound like any of these are provided for in any way. The implication is that he voluntarily joined up to be left behind as a slave?!?

The bard, cleric, or hound archon do increase the group abilities, but not nearly as much as doubling the wealth of the party in custom magic items.
Also, they will get to travel with the party, be heroes, learn from those more experienced than them. At the same time they are being protected if the party wants them to survive and contribute, they are probably getting some nice magic items so they are becoming more powerful. The slave wizard is getting what? room and board?


Just an example of a time when I took Leadership under a great DM.. Took it right at 6 (in 3.5).. Couple sessions later my Half-Elf Bard met his Half-Orc sister, who was a Barbarian2/Cleric2. Nobody says the cohort has to be powerful, you could make it pure flavour.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that, personally, I love the leadership feat.

Both as a DM and as a player.

I usually even let my players design the cohort and followers.

I also usually have the Cohort as an RP NPC that the characters can interact with, they're people, not mindless automatons. If you treat them badly, they will either leave or do something to get revenge for the abuse.

It's really a very DM intensive feat. Technically, you, as DM get to design the cohort. Having the player design the cohort is something the player should have asked permission for ahead of time. As well as taking the feat at all.

Leadership can open up entirely new plot avenues, like a warlord getting jealous that his men have taken up with this nobody from nowhere. In this case, maybe a master archmage wondering where his apprentice has run off to. Or maybe the apprentice is eyeballs deep in debt to some nasty? Has a contract on their head? Made a deal with a devil at some point? Has children/siblings that need protecting?

The possibilities are endless. I say, if the player wants to design an NPC for you to exploit, have fun with it. You didn't even have to stat it up, all the work has already been done.

And incidentally, a wizard with no combat viability just screams "kidnapped princess trope" to me.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:

...

There is a penalty for the Leader moving around a lot.

Everything above that is punishment by the GM.

What is so wrong about using some Wizard to craft items?
Would it be better to get a free Bard that is your buff B1tch?
Would it be better to get a free Cleric that is your Healbot?
Would it be better to ge a free Hound Archon and adding class levels so you have your Meatshield?

I mean isn't the whole purpose of Leadership to get a cool Cohort that adds to your power?

The penalty for moving around only applies to followers not cohorts.

A person would become a follower due to things like following a religious leaders, love, training, great pay, protection, exciting adventures, etc... No, I don't know all the details, but from the description at the begining of the thread. It doesn't sound like any of these are provided for in any way. The implication is that he voluntarily joined up to be left behind as a slave?!?

The bard, cleric, or hound archon do increase the group abilities, but not nearly as much as doubling the wealth of the party in custom magic items.
Also, they will get to travel with the party, be heroes, learn from those more experienced than them. At the same time they are being protected if the party wants them to survive and contribute, they are probably getting some nice magic items so they are becoming more powerful. The slave wizard is getting what? room and board?

Why is he a slave?

Maybe he even likes helping the big stuff by handling the base and creating items for the other guys who are on the dangerous tasks?


A lot of new DMs don't know that the feat leadership gives an allied NPC. They don't have direct control over the character and have no choice in its creation.

Scarab Sages

Obviously every GM has a different opinion about a feat like leadership.

IMO, A cohort is an NPC, not a 2nd character for the PC. A GM should always set a personality, strengths, weaknesses, history, issues, etc for a cohort. Then, think of them as a loyal lieutenant, but with a mind of their own as well. The player should never get to create such a character from the ground up, optimizing them to suit their own needs, it ruins the suspense, interaction, RPing with the cohort. If they are just an obedient servant with no mind of their own, just give the player a golem or servant.

A cohort is neither to my way of thinking. If its too much work to develop the NPC, then you probably should not let your players take the feat. I know a lot of players will say forget it if they can't get their way and create the "super-minion" they want, in which case too bad. This is a tough feat to adjudicate and does require a fair bit of GM work to handle.

Alternatively, you can let the player design the cohort he wants and let him run with it if it works for your game. Just remember in this case, when your BBEGs are plotting, the cohort is usually the weakest link.

My current group is pretty large, so we don't let players take this feat, unless they want an NPC to act as sort of a seneschal or agent while they adventure. A druid taking a treant cohort, a castle owner with a captain of the guard, or a high priest with an underpriest are good examples places where a non-adventuring cohort can be effective and give the players the sense of security regarding their lands while they are out and about.

Liberty's Edge

I would subvert the cohort character (who's probably sick of indentured servitude anyway), and have him work for a bad guy secretly.

Do the PCs wonder how the villain is always able to track them so easily? If some of the magic items the PCs are wearing came from the villain himself/herself via the cohort, then it'll make some divination spells much easier to use against the party. For that matter, it should be fairly easy for the cohort to obtain little things that belong to the party and pass them along (again, for the purpose of more easily spying on them).

Have the cohort gather as much information about the party's tactics and abilities as possible (he's here to help, after all), and pass it along to the villain. How is it that the villain and his followers are always prepared for all of the party's favorite spells? The guy must really do his homework.

Reveal the cohort as a traitor at a sufficiently dramatic moment (and allow the player to later retrain the Leadership feat, and swap it out for something else).

Maybe there will be an opportunity to slip the party a cursed magic item, as well?

This probably works best with a high Charisma villain (and who doesn't love high Charisma villains?). Maybe a Succubus?

You should be as over-the-top in using this cohort against the player as possible...abuse Leadership to the same degree as the player.

Of course, I'm just plain mean-spirited. Maybe you'd just rather not go there...

Liberty's Edge

Malfus wrote:
You do know that most magic item crafting does not have a CL requirement, right?
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Uh...look over the magic item rules. It most certainly all does, you can just ignore it (like most other crafting prerequisites), by increasing the DC of the crafting check (which, with a focused crafter makes it kind of a moot point a lot of the time). All of which is why I said "(well, at least a bit)". It probably won't matter often, but it certainly could come up. Especially if you wind up wanting him to craft something that he doesn't meet several other prerequisites on.

Actually, CL is listed on magic items so that you can better define found loot, and know how hard it is to affect with dispel magic. CL is not a prerequisite, and not having the listed caster level for an item doesn't increase the DC to create the item. Prerequisites are listed at the end of the item, and you can ignore any of those (except the requisite Item Creation feats) by adding 5 to the DC for each missing prerequisite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Letting players take the Leadership feat and then building and controlling the cohort as the DM just seems punitive, like stealing a feat. The inclusion of helpful NPCs shouldn't depend on a feat but on the discretion of the DM and his storytelling. If the players/characters decide they want a buddy they should just ask the dm/ask people for aid and ply them with sweet-smelling gifts.


imo cohorts should not be able to hae all create items feats.

cohorts should be out with party or guarding stronghold.

crafting magic items is just cheasey.

you allowed it to happen its your own fault, make do with it and next time learn and not allow them to use the feat or in your best interest, make the cohort yourself.

3 lvls below the party and a melee or archer type.using casters is fine and all, but it can get out of hand.

as the others said, kill the cohort and have the items stolen....

or

have the items stolen and kidnap the cohort and make a side quest out of getting her and the items back. just make sure they know that if they dont it goes on the party's reputation and that the stolen items = x amount of gold and would be futile to not retrieve them....


Heymitch wrote:
Actually, CL is listed on magic items so that you can better define found loot, and know how hard it is to affect with dispel magic. CL is not a prerequisite, and not having the listed caster level for an item doesn't increase the DC to create the item. Prerequisites are listed at the end of the item, and you can ignore any of those (except the requisite Item Creation feats) by adding 5 to the DC for each missing prerequisite.

Some prereqs you can't ignore.

PRD wrote:
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

Also, on occasion, Caster Level does matter.

PRD wrote:

Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or a magic shield must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any armor or shield special abilities.

...

Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities.

Emphasis mine. Whether or not you can +5 your way out of those, I'm not certain, and I've probably missed some things. But it is relevant on occasion.


Steelfiredragon wrote:

imo cohorts should not be able to hae all create items feats.

cohorts should be out with party or guarding stronghold.

crafting magic items is just cheasey.

you allowed it to happen its your own fault, make do with it and next time learn and not allow them to use the feat or in your best interest, make the cohort yourself.

3 lvls below the party and a melee or archer type.using casters is fine and all, but it can get out of hand.

as the others said, kill the cohort and have the items stolen....

or

have the items stolen and kidnap the cohort and make a side quest out of getting her and the items back. just make sure they know that if they dont it goes on the party's reputation and that the stolen items = x amount of gold and would be futile to not retrieve them....

So like a free buff b1tch bard is not cheesy.

Or a Hound Archon improved with class levels.

The list is endless. A cohort with item creation feats is even less useful than a real cohort that makes you skyrocket in combat.


Leadership is the most powerful feat in the game. Always has been. Even if he were using it in a non "cheesy" way, like as an additional party member...that's still gaining +1 party member for the price of a feat! Yeah, 2 levels back, but that's still clearly WAAAAAY better than a feat!

That said, if the cohort just stays back at base all the time crafting, he'll never gain xp to level up with, which will restrict what he can make. Yeah, you can ignore CL requirements. But that adds +5 to the DC. What makes the spellcraft DC easier? More levels for ranks and +int.

I actually would like Leadership as a reward for putting points into a common "dump stat" but...doesn't hurt sorcs one bit to have sky high cha... Maybe if you got a leadership penalty equal to the highest level of spellcasting you had...hmm...


The design have clarified that the person taking the feat or the level that grants a companion is the one who builds it. That's the intent.


Alienfreak wrote:

So like a free buff b1tch bard is not cheesy.
Or a Hound Archon improved with class levels.

The list is endless. A cohort with item creation feats is even less useful than a real cohort that makes you skyrocket in combat.

Some of them probably are. But the bonuses from booster NPCs are competing with a Wealth By Level skew that could blow them out of the water, is what everyone else is arguing. A booster NPC can be killed in combat. They are constantly in the line of fire and need to be equipped to protect themselves (and in many interpretations, use the NPC wealth chart to do so unless the PCs chip in from their own pool).

A magic item crafter needs to get set in a safe place, but then provides EVERYONE a bonus equal to whatever you can buy and make with the new discount. This bonus lasts as long as you use the items, and if the item crafter dies or leaves, those items stay until they are fully consumed/broken/get replaced. So yes, some people think item crafters are far more cheesy than a buff monkey (which the party may already have- some players enjoy playing buff monkeys, and a celestial can be Gated in or otherwise summoned).


Parka wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:

So like a free buff b1tch bard is not cheesy.
Or a Hound Archon improved with class levels.

The list is endless. A cohort with item creation feats is even less useful than a real cohort that makes you skyrocket in combat.

Some of them probably are. But the bonuses from booster NPCs are competing with a Wealth By Level skew that could blow them out of the water, is what everyone else is arguing. A booster NPC can be killed in combat. They are constantly in the line of fire and need to be equipped to protect themselves (and in many interpretations, use the NPC wealth chart to do so unless the PCs chip in from their own pool).

A magic item crafter needs to get set in a safe place, but then provides EVERYONE a bonus equal to whatever you can buy and make with the new discount. This bonus lasts as long as you use the items, and if the item crafter dies or leaves, those items stay until they are fully consumed/broken/get replaced. So yes, some people think item crafters are far more cheesy than a buff monkey (which the party may already have- some players enjoy playing buff monkeys, and a celestial can be Gated in or otherwise summoned).

If you are so worried about CWI... every wizard can teleport and then build it.

You can even build it on the go with 2 hours per day. For free! Without getting to a save place! It just takes a while. But with done hastly you only need twice as long as you would if you werent out adventuring.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
The design have clarified that the person taking the feat or the level that grants a companion is the one who builds it. That's the intent.

Link or it didn't happen. :P


Even if the Devs have clarified this feat, since it's not PFS legal, there is nothing stopping the houserule/GM's discretion as to how the feat is treated. (Not that there ever was/is/will be any way of challenging the GM's word)


Alienfreak wrote:

If you are so worried about CWI... every wizard can teleport and then build it.

You can even build it on the go with 2 hours per day. For free! Without getting to a save place! It just takes a while. But with done hastly you only need twice as long as you would if you werent out adventuring.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you.

Groups might not want to sit for another 4 hours each day waiting for the caster (who doesn't have to be a wizard, though it helps), on top of their 8 hours of rest they need and 1 hour of spell prep. And 4 hours of work while adventuring nets you 2 hours of progress, and the minimum possible for non-scroll, non-potion items is 4 hours per 1000 GP unless you are citing an ability I'm not familiar with when you say "done hastily." I assume you're referring to accelerating your work speed, which is why it's 4 hours per 1000 instead of 8. Those 4 hours of work also require a level surface and the same level of calm and lack of interruption as spell preparation, which can be pretty restrictive sometimes. A crafter goes from needing 9 hours of calm and peace in an adventuring day to 13 (or from 3 with a Ring of Sustenance back up to 7).

And it definitely isn't "free," which is why so many people are all over this specific example.

1 to 50 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Abusing Leadership Feat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.