|
I've poked through old posts to see what the community thinks about the Leadership feat, as I'm considering banning it from my game. What I won't use is the feat as written.
In the past: RAW. Everyone taking the feat chose a buff caster or healbot. Gee, big surprise. Multiple problems, least of which was that for 1 miserly Feat, players can get access to all cleric spells levels 1-4, all missing skills they didn't take, etc.
Last Game: Banned cohorts as combats took too long with one player adjudicating two characters. Indicated for this campaign I'd allow a non-adventuring cohort. Problem? Immediate proposal of magic-item factory cohorts. Rather than spend several feats to get crafting, player can spend 1 feat and gain access to 4+ crafting feats from the NPC, just funneling $$$ when needed.
Concern: Balancing my players who like the idea of having a "sidekick" (like an animal companion) with the possibility of abuse. I have considered: outright ban, monstrous cohorts only who advance with fighter levels, NPC class cohorts only (limiting crafting options). I could "hijack" the process but I really don't want to take over control of the Cohort and say they won't make items, etc.
Thoughts?
If you don't want cohorts, ban leadership. If you want controlled cohorts, ban leadership and give them options to attract cohorts on their own. Instead of using a feat and thinking they deserve control, they just get NPC's who follow their own lot in life (that is they listen to the GM primarily). No using up feat slots, and they still get a sidekick.
If you really want leadership, but don't want your players running amok with options, allow leadership and restrict cohorts to core and eliminate item creation feats as a possibility. You could also ban full-caster progression or just prepared casters to stop players from getting access to infinite numbers of spells. Can't help you with the skills thing though :P
I've poked through old posts to see what the community thinks about the Leadership feat, as I'm considering banning it from my game. What I won't use is the feat as written.
In the past: RAW. Everyone taking the feat chose a buff caster or healbot. Gee, big surprise. Multiple problems, least of which was that for 1 miserly Feat, players can get access to all cleric spells levels 1-4, all missing skills they didn't take, etc.
Last Game: Banned cohorts as combats took too long with one player adjudicating two characters. Indicated for this campaign I'd allow a non-adventuring cohort. Problem? Immediate proposal of magic-item factory cohorts. Rather than spend several feats to get crafting, player can spend 1 feat and gain access to 4+ crafting feats from the NPC, just funneling $$$ when needed.
Concern: Balancing my players who like the idea of having a "sidekick" (like an animal companion) with the possibility of abuse. I have considered: outright ban, monstrous cohorts only who advance with fighter levels, NPC class cohorts only (limiting crafting options). I could "hijack" the process but I really don't want to take over control of the Cohort and say they won't make items, etc.
Thoughts?
Leadership is a feat that really can't be balanced. For example, you may want an animal companion without playing a ranger, druid, etc. Problem solved! Here's a druid companion! And he comes with an animal companion!
Dodge is a feat. Leadership is just a joke. In fact, by rules as written, anyone who doesn't take the leadership feat is at a profound disadvantage. To make the most powerful party by RAW, everyone should have a cohort, and huge meat shields of 100+ peasants can't hurt either.
This is why many DM's rightfully ban leadership. Sure, if your character in game secures his place as a king, wise man or other man with followers, it would make sense to give him followers in game. But to say that such a status should exist as a result of one feat? Give me a break.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fact: Leadership never says you get to *create* your cohort, only that you can recruit them (and the level listed is the limit, there is no guarantee they start at that level). The state of the cohort at the time of recruitment is *entirely* up the DM. All the player can do is accept/decline (or rather, choose whether to pursue that NPC as a cohort). If they decline, don't feel bad that they don't get to use their feat, it was their choice to take it without an NPC in mind.
Fact: It also never says you get to level the cohort in the manner you desire. This means it is entirely up the DM what the cohort chooses to learn when they level and how influenced they will be by the desires of the character with leadership (if at all).
Thoughts: The leadership feat is fine because it's inherently ENTIRELY up to the DM what the player can/cannot find, and how the cohort advances once recruited. If it is a problem, then it's a problem with how it's being run not with the feat itself.
Bonus Fact: The DM technically gets to control the cohort's actions. It is only given to the player as a convenience by some groups, but it is not a rule that they can directly control/command the cohort in any way (other than diplomacy checks, of course, which can easily succeed if there aren't extenuating circumstances). The cohort obviously thinks well of the player, and tries to help them in any way they can, but is not automatically beholden to their direct word (e.g. if they noticed that the character was under the effects of enchantment they might go against orders and go to get the enchantment broken).
I think if you are concerned they are going to abuse it then just ban it outright. It is a very powerful feat whether abused or not so don't cause yourself any extra stress.
For my game leadership is a perfect feat for my characters as it involves lots of ship battles, so cohorts and followers to crew the ship is perfect. The cohort(s) do not get abused though because my players don't get to design them, if one of them chooses Leadership then I make the NPC they get. I'm not a dick about it or anything though, they were in a port town and justed +1 rep'd the city with an act of awesomeness so I had a smelly ex-pirate approach them about joining their ship who is awesome at siege firearms.
Now while I create the Cohort, the player with the leadership feat controls him in Combat
I don't use the Leadership feat but instead I give the players to the ability to get the effect of Leadership through the game. Basically if they build a stronghold of some sort they can attract followers and cohort.
This is win win I think. For I control the NPCs and if they are abused they leave. For the player they aren't spending feat to get followers and cahort.
I found with a feat used to take Leadership there is some expectations from the player that the Cohort and followers will always be there. After all the blew a feat on it. Take away that cost and it seems to fix things.
I think this could help you a lot:
You know I always wanted to make a character that was the headmaster of a magic university, but there is not much call for wizards to have charisma and a sorcerer headmaster does not seem right. I mean a university only makes sense for prepared castors. There are no prepared casters that use charisma so who would be the headmaster of a magic university?
|
I mean a university only makes sense for prepared castors. There are no prepared casters that use charisma so who would be the headmaster of a magic university?
A Wizard that didn't see the need to max the stats of STR DEX CON and WIS.
I always wanted to make a Paladin or Cleric who started their own religion who smacked people who used improper grammar.
"Power so strong, even I am impressed with!" *smack*
"Kid, you and me will go places!" *smack*
"AM BARBARIAN THINK AM BARBARIAN NEED MORE AXE." *smack* *smack* *smack*
A couple of thoughts
If you have players who immediately want to recruit an item Crafter; Make sure they are aware that any qualified Crafter is going to want a comfortable and well appointed facility where they will be doing their thing, it'll be the player who foots the bill for this. Property, buildings, masterwork tools and a surplus sized stock of raw materials. That's gonna be expensive. So expensive perhaps that it would be cheaper to just buy the items at full price. Additionally this cohort is going to want a substantial salary, he has skills that will get it somewhere so cheeping out isn't really an option for the PC.
With all of this in mind, I've found that some players still like the idea of their own personal "Q". It's not really unbalancing given that the costs of maintaining your own magic armory are significant and maybe time consuming.
A buffer cohort who follows you around making you more potent is going to want something as well. What that is, is up to the DM and the needs of his game. It should be more than just money, though they will want that as well. If a buffer is an Unbalancing presence there is no reason you should provide one.
Leadership covers some things that will pop up eventually. Wizards looking for apprentices. Cavaliers looking for a squire. Up above someone pointed out the option of a player who wants to open and operate a Buisness, this one is prickly. I like to reward roleplay but I'm not gonna to volunteer to be an accountant for a PC's sideline Buisness, I also don't want everyone to start "JoeBob's Thatching Co.", burning a feat for this is fair.
Also I second everything in StabbityDoom's post above.
I restrict the feat to certain classes.
Fighters and Martial types.
Spellcasters can get apprentices. Anything more takes a serious RP justification.