Emphasized due to bias.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, because Leadership is already banned by most non-workaholic GMs ?Oh, I'm sorry. You meant to say "incompetent" GMs, right? :D
Not only do I allow leadership, but I give it for free to PCs that reach 7th level and have a Charisma of 17 or higher (Those without the charisma requirement may also still opt to purchase the feat).
I just make the PC do all the work. They want a cohort? They are responsible for it.
tenacious survivor!! best feat ever printed, play a quiggong monk/unbreakable fighter and get restoration for 2 ki points.
die, get healed, burn 2 ki points to remove the negative level, get back into the fight, repeat!
*edit* leadership is too much of a headach. the gm is required to run and build the npc by raw. it slows the game down and make the party size double.
what i do with leadership is very similar to someone above, if you want to get followers, use diplomacy and make people like you enough to join your cause. but taking a feat and getting a warrior to be your meat shield, no way in hell.
Dazing assault, combat reflexes and spell perfection. Yes, these feats are all good but most people know that the best feat ever is....
Leadership!!
+1
Absolutely correct. There is no feat that is superior to leadership.
I removed Leadership as feat. I don't think it's something you need to spend a feat on. If player actively pursues Leadership I grant it for free at time that feels appropriate.
Best Feat Ever I think is Crane Wing.
Natural Spell, Improved Initiative, Weapon Finesse, Power Attack (and its derivatives\relatives) -- all are character-defining feats, with the possible exception of Natural Spellcasting, which really is a "Druids get one fewer feats" auto-pick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm would be with Lincoln on BoE but... There's Improvisation from the ARG, which is simply better imo. +2 to all skills you don't have ranks in. And can do all of them untrained. Sure it has a req, but you're a human and you have a feat to spare anyways. And if you can get the improved version you have +4 in all un-ranked skills. That's HUGE.
I put this on a Human fighter, and suddenly he's a skill monkey at low levels. It's nuts both in flavor and mechanics.
*edited for grammar
Why don't you just break it down by class?
Leadership is going to be #1 for versatility and power for all classes, pretty much hands down.
Fighter - Crane Wing. I'd also pick Sunder Spell, but it's Dwarf only, right?
Rogue - Weapon Finesse. Come on, it's like giving them +5 to hit at high levels. Is there a single classic rogue who doesn't take the feat?
Blaster caster - Yep, Spell Perfection. Signature Spell comes in at #2.
Barbarian - I would like to say Superstition, but it's a class thing. I'll have to go with Power Attack. Barbs are BUILT to use PA.
Generic Caster/Metamagic: Nothing like Quicken Spell.
Which leaves the best feats for a lot of other classes. Can a Witch take Improved Familiar, etc?
==Aelryinth
Master List
Druid = Natural Spell. a DUH. There is no better feat then being allowed spellcasting while a chipmunk, and not needing Silent/Still casting feats, with no +LA.
Is there a feat that lets you turn Channels to Smites? That would probably take care of Clerics and Paladins. I can't think of any greatest feats for them, Inqs, or Bards.
Gunslingers...either Point Blank Mastery or extra Grit. Heh.
Nothing awesome for cavs, either. And for Monks, several of the Martial schools are excellent.
Improved Initiative. Acting first can make or break an encounter.
I have to agree. It is almost never a bad choice no matter what you are playing.
Dodge.
Improved Initiative. Acting first can make or break an encounter.I have to agree. It is almost never a bad choice no matter what you are playing.
the issue with wasting a feat on improved inititive is when that +0 inititive paladin goes first because his dice are scewed making him roll better more often(not saying hes cheating). ive seen this with my own eyes, an inquisitor with wisdom, dex, trait bonus, and imroved inititive... and the pally rolls 3 20's for his inititives through out the day.
if it guranteed you one of the top 3 slots somehow, then i would agree improved inititive would be an amazing feat. right now, its a feat if you have extra feats you havent filled.
|
the issue with wasting a feat on improved inititive
[snip]
if it guranteed you one of the top 3 slots somehow, then i would agree improved inititive would be an amazing feat. right now, its a feat if you have extra feats you havent filled.
[tangent]
Mutants & Masterminds has a mechanic for rerolls that if you roll less than a 10 on your reroll, you add +10 to the roll (so, on a d20, every reroll is going to end up between 11 and 20). Something like that could be an interesting 'Supreme Initiative' feat, with Improved Initiative as a prereq. Every time you roll for Initiative, you add +10 if the roll is below 10. (Or just keep rerolling until you get an 11 or better, but that could take longer.)[/tangent]
The two-ply foe stopper:
Stunning Fist and Touch of Serenity
I once had a wizard who took leadership as a feat and had a cohort who did nothing but craft magical items for the party in a little sweatshop in the basement.
Not my proudest moment.
Stealing that idea. ;-)
|
Stealing that idea. ;-)I once had a wizard who took leadership as a feat and had a cohort who did nothing but craft magical items for the party in a little sweatshop in the basement.
Not my proudest moment.
Well it's like:
"Well for the price of ONE feat, I get ALL the crafting feats and I can craft items without having to take time out of my gallivanting across the countryside...YES PLEASE!"
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
As many have said, Leadership can be very powerful and requires a lot more GM oversight to use in a balanced manner.
Setting Leadership aside, I like:
Step Up: no more easy getting away from AoOs, archers and castys!
Steel Soul: let's double one of dwarves' best racial bonuses
Craft Wondrous Item: so versatile, even if you can't design custom items. Borderline broken if you can.
Quicken Spell: action economy ftw
Clustered Shots: it was already easy to carry around a bunch of arrows of different materials. Now you don't even need to do that.
Eldritch Heritage: also very versatile, a real menu of interesting effects both from a RP and an optimization perspective.
I'm would be with Lincoln on BoE but... There's Improvisation from the ARG, which is simply better imo. +2 to all skills you don't have ranks in. And can do all of them untrained. Sure it has a req, but you're a human and you have a feat to spare anyways. And if you can get the improved version you have +4 in all un-ranked skills. That's HUGE.
I put this on a Human fighter, and suddenly he's a skill monkey at low levels. It's nuts both in flavor and mechanics.
*edited for grammar
This is why I came he after all the hubbub on bradth of experience. Wouldn't it be nice to expand that untrained +2 to spellcraft, linguistics, disable device, use magic device, sleight of hand, and more? Yes, yes it would.
Edit: also, with the improved version, you can double that bonus and halve the nonproficiency penalty for weapons and armor. I have an arcane duelist bard in one of my games, and even though he doesn't have bardic knowledge, he has a better version of bardic knowledge (for five levels, at least) than core bards do.
Well it's like:
"Well for the price of ONE feat, I get ALL the crafting feats and I can craft items without having to take time out of my gallivanting across the countryside...YES PLEASE!"
as a gm i just want to point out, you dont get to build your cohort. leadership states that you gain an npc, and unlike class features like edilons or animal companions, you dont get a premade stat block to choose how your cohort is built. your gm was very nice to let you have exactly what you wanted in a cohort, but not all gms will.
i actually make my pc's hold "auditions" and interviews for there cohorts, and i dont give away what class they are beforehand. then they need to pick one they think will be the best for there group, well back when i let the feat be played.
I allow them to take it but they don't get their cohort until I deem their RP to deserve it...
We sort of do the opposite usually.
Ex: We encountered a warforged juggenaught being underutilized as a guard. Managed to get past him and accomplish our mission without fighting him. Afterward my magus decided to try and hire him. Succeeded. GM says, "He can be a standard hireling. Or if you want a closer relationship (more loyal) you can take the leadership feat at the next level gain."
Even so, I would probably rate leadership as the most powerful feat (when allowed). EDIT: My current group has never been interested in the followers aspect.
Next best is probably improved initiative. But since everyone always says to take, that conversely makes me not want to take it.
|
|
On Improved Initiative:
When I have a PC with a full attack consisting of more than one attack I'd like the bad guy to go before me. He'll use his move to get adjacent and only get a single, standard attack. I then respond with a full attack.
If I go first I use MY move to get to him, attack once, then HE gets a full attack on ME!
Improved Initiative the best feat in the game? Not for melee warriors with more than one attack!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On Improved Initiative:
When I have a PC with a full attack consisting of more than one attack I'd like the bad guy to go before me. He'll use his move to get adjacent and only get a single, standard attack. I then respond with a full attack.
If I go first I use MY move to get to him, attack once, then HE gets a full attack on ME!
Improved Initiative the best feat in the game? Not for melee warriors with more than one attack!
Solid logic if you're alone! But if your job as melee at least involves intercepting attacks, tis better to win initiative and delay.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Next best is probably improved initiative. But since everyone always says to take, that conversely makes me not want to take it.
Improved Initiative is one of those odd cases where it only has value if someone doesn't take it. If every single character takes Improved Initiative then everybody wasted a feat.
I allow them to take it but they don't get their cohort until I deem their RP to deserve it...We sort of do the opposite usually.
Ex: We encountered a warforged juggenaught being underutilized as a guard. Managed to get past him and accomplish our mission without fighting him. Afterward my magus decided to try and hire him. Succeeded. GM says, "He can be a standard hireling. Or if you want a closer relationship (more loyal) you can take the leadership feat at the next level gain."
That's basically the same thing I do, yeah. I give the player two options - they can try to convince an NPC they know to be their cohort, or they can express that they're looking for one and I can introduce another character that meets the criteria they're looking for and see if they want to hire them. Since we're playing Kingmaker there's (thus far) no shortage of NPCs available and potentially interested in being hired, though none of them are casters (yet).
In either case they'll have to be on good terms with the NPC, and have something that the NPC is actually interested in learning from them, or a good reason they'd want to hire them as a job. Hence the need for RP to justify the feat. A wizard's unlikely to pick up a cohort fighter by RPing looking for an apprentice, for example, but will have a much better time if he advertises looking for a bodyguard.
I don't let them build their own cohorts, myself. They're still NPCs, not class features like an Eidolon or Familiar or Companion.
Stealing that idea. ;-)I once had a wizard who took leadership as a feat and had a cohort who did nothing but craft magical items for the party in a little sweatshop in the basement.
Not my proudest moment.
Well it's like:
"Well for the price of ONE feat, I get ALL the crafting feats and I can craft items without having to take time out of my gallivanting across the countryside...YES PLEASE!"
Can you say "Kingmaker?" :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
as a gm i just want to point out, you dont get to build your cohort. leadership states that you gain an npc, and unlike class features like edilons or animal companions, you dont get a premade stat block to choose how your cohort is built. your gm was very nice to let you have exactly what you wanted in a cohort, but not all gms will.i actually make my pc's hold "auditions" and interviews for there cohorts, and i dont give away what class they are beforehand. then they need to pick one they think will be the best for there group, well back when i let the feat be played.
I used to take the same stance as well, then the developers stated quite clearly that it was their intent all along for the PLAYER to create the NPC, since it was THEIR FEAT.
Blew my mind.
...
I used to take the same stance as well, then the developers stated quite clearly that it was their intent all along for the PLAYER to create the NPC, since it was THEIR FEAT.Blew my mind.
Where is that? Never heard that before.
My GM has usually let us make the cohort within broad guidlines. But I usually did it when I was GM. Usually he will state things like lower point buy than PC's, lower than WBL, etc...
|
|
I'm would be with Lincoln on BoE but... There's Improvisation from the ARG, which is simply better imo. +2 to all skills you don't have ranks in. And can do all of them untrained. Sure it has a req, but you're a human and you have a feat to spare anyways. And if you can get the improved version you have +4 in all un-ranked skills. That's HUGE.
I put this on a Human fighter, and suddenly he's a skill monkey at low levels. It's nuts both in flavor and mechanics.
*edited for grammar
As cool as that feat is, adding to untrained isn't that good. It works well with profession because those DCs tend to be low and stay low. The reason I like Breadth of Experience so much is it adds +2 to all of my knowledges. Since your bard/wizard was an elf anyway (right? riiiight?), and so was automatically qualified for this feat, it's immensely powerful. A bonus that only applies when skills are untrained is quickly outpaced in a few levels, and as you stated it has requirements beyond just racial. Of course if you never get past level 5 I can see the argument going to Improvisation.
Lunge is really great -- it's always nice to remember "oh ho, I CAN reach that bad guy!" even if I'm stuck in a hallway, the badguy's on the ceiling, or I want to finish my full attack. It's fantastic if you already carry a reach weapon, really nice if you don't, great if you're healing to save someone's life but want to step away from the AOO first, great if you're delivering a touch attack from behind your tank... just, great.
Since it says "best feat ever," though, allow me to lament the late great "Arcane Thesis." Much like Magical Lineage, this decreased the cost of metamagics, but it did it once for EVERY metamagic. Hello, Empowered Blistering Searing Flaming Fiery Fireballs.
Not quite what I remembered it as, but here's what I found so far.
Do you restrict the Leadership feat at all? If so, is it based on party size, whether the PC already has a 'pet', how many other cohorts are already in the party, or something else?
When a PC in your game takes leadership, how is the cohort generated? by you, by them, or by you with some basic input from them?
Would you allow a summoner to take leadership and have a summoner cohort, thus having effectively 4 characters to control?
I generally don't allow the Leadership skill [sic] when there's more than 4 or 5 players.
When a PC takes the feat, I usually let the player build it, provided the player has a cool idea and that the campaign's story works with it.
No. Because every time you get a minion, you're robbing play time from your fellow players. The amount of time a session lasts doesn't change, so when you take a cohort, the amount of time on average for each player's turn decreases. It's not fair to other players for on character to so overly monopolize the game.
I've generally let the PC who takes the Leadership feat build his cohort and control it. Less work for me, the GM. Sometimes, a player specifically requests that I provide a cohort, or wants to make an established NPC in the campaign a cohort, in which case I would stat up the cohort and then let the PC control it.
Will be checking to make sure there aren't other citable sources that I may be overlooking.
EDIT: SKR states that players should at least have their cohorts stats available to them.
...And unless you make a habit of keeping strange secrets about the cohorts (for which the PC spent a feat), the player ought to be aware of what the cohort can do, and thus they need the cohort's stat block.
He also implies that it is no more an "optional" feat than any other.
Leadership (and thus cohorts) require as much DM approval as taking Power Attack.
When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?
AND
So, yes, the player should be able to design his cohort.Then we agree.
I never said the GM shouldn't be involved. I'm just saying the PC is spending a resource--a feat--and should get to make the decisions about that resource. If you create a potion-making cleric cohort, that's fine, he's unavailable for adventuring much of the time, and it's not like the PC couldn't have taken Brew Potion on his own. If he makes a meat-shield fighter, and that fighter dies (which, given the 2-levels-lower limit, isn't a surprise), then that dings the character's leadership score (as does the "moves around a lot" penalty, and others).
Your point about Handle Animal is an excellent one--there are brakes in the game to keep some things from getting out of control, and if the GM doesn't use those brakes, it's his fault.
Not quite what I remembered it as, but here's what I found so far.
Do you restrict the Leadership feat at all? If so, is it based on party size, whether the PC already has a 'pet', how many other cohorts are already in the party, or something else?
When a PC in your game takes leadership, how is the cohort generated? by you, by them, or by you with some basic input from them?
Would you allow a summoner to take leadership and have a summoner cohort, thus having effectively 4 characters to control?
I generally don't allow the Leadership skill [sic] when there's more than 4 or 5 players.
When a PC takes the feat, I usually let the player build it, provided the player has a cool idea and that the campaign's story works with it.
No. Because every time you get a minion, you're robbing play time from your fellow players. The amount of time a session lasts doesn't change, so when you take a cohort, the amount of time on average for each player's turn decreases. It's not fair to other players for on character to so overly monopolize the game.
I've generally let the PC who takes the Leadership feat build his cohort and control it. Less work for me, the GM. Sometimes, a player specifically requests that I provide a cohort, or wants to make an established NPC in the campaign a cohort, in which case I would stat up the cohort and then let the PC control it.Will be checking to make sure there aren't other citable sources that I may be overlooking.
Basically when we use Leadership GM's let players make their own cohorts. Just to make it easier.
As cool as that feat is, adding to untrained isn't that good. It works well with profession because those DCs tend to be low and stay low. The reason I like Breadth of Experience so much is it adds +2 to all of my knowledges. Since your bard/wizard was an elf anyway (right? riiiight?), and so was automatically qualified for this feat, it's immensely powerful. A bonus that only applies when skills are untrained is quickly outpaced in a few levels, and as you stated it has requirements beyond just racial. Of course if you never get past level 5 I can see the argument going to Improvisation.
But it's meant for those who aren't expected to be skill monkeys. Think about a combat character with the minimum of ranks, like a fighter(which works especially well since they have feats to burn). You can burn your level 1 & human feat(which inherently offsets the cost of the 2nd teir feat) to have this bonus at that at level 1. By 3rd you can get the improved version for +4 in all untrained skills.
You get 5 skills per level(2 + 1 int + 1 Hum + 1 FC) so you put your ranks in what you'd be actually want to be good at and keep everything else untrained. You're now +2/+4 in everything, except where you're fully ranked. You can maybe make that knowledge check on planes, heal that dying soldier, sail that ship, or use that relic. Better yet you can help others, who actually are good at these things, by aiding them when before you could not. It literally takes impossible tasks and helps makes them possible.
BoE may help those who are skilled, but Improvisation & it's Improved version helps every human class.
Darth Grall, I find it particularly useful with skills that have really high ability scores attached to them. For example, my human sorcerer with 32 Charisma gets a +15 Diplomacy modifier with those feats, even though he has no ranks.
That means he's almost as good at Diplomacy as the other guy with max ranks and a more expected (10-16) Charisma.
Lunge is really great -- it's always nice to remember "oh ho, I CAN reach that bad guy!" even if I'm stuck in a hallway, the badguy's on the ceiling, or I want to finish my full attack. It's fantastic if you already carry a reach weapon, really nice if you don't, great if you're healing to save someone's life but want to step away from the AOO first, great if you're delivering a touch attack from behind your tank... just, great.
Since it says "best feat ever," though, allow me to lament the late great "Arcane Thesis." Much like Magical Lineage, this decreased the cost of metamagics, but it did it once for EVERY metamagic. Hello, Empowered Blistering Searing Flaming Fiery Fireballs.
I preferred my Empowered Energized Twinned Admixtured Split Ray'd Magic Missile converted to Rays off my Force Missile Mage/Spellwarp Sniper, thanks. 108d4+108 dmg to undead, 54d8+54 to everyone else, any element you wanted.
Yes, Arcane Thesis was the best feat for blasters.
==Aelryinth
Lunge is really great -- it's always nice to remember "oh ho, I CAN reach that bad guy!" even if I'm stuck in a hallway, the badguy's on the ceiling, or I want to finish my full attack. It's fantastic if you already carry a reach weapon, really nice if you don't, great if you're healing to save someone's life but want to step away from the AOO first, great if you're delivering a touch attack from behind your tank... just, great.
Since it says "best feat ever," though, allow me to lament the late great "Arcane Thesis." Much like Magical Lineage, this decreased the cost of metamagics, but it did it once for EVERY metamagic. Hello, Empowered Blistering Searing Flaming Fiery Fireballs.
I preferred my Empowered Energized Twinned Admixtured Split Ray'd Magic Missile converted to Rays off my Force Missile Mage/Spellwarp Sniper, thanks. 108d4+108 dmg to undead, 54d8+54 to everyone else, any element you wanted.
Yes, Arcane Thesis was the best feat for blasters.
==Aelryinth
People complain about power creep now, but they just need to take a look back at 3.5 and remember how bad it really was.
I used to take the same stance as well, then the developers stated quite clearly that it was their intent all along for the PLAYER to create the NPC, since it was THEIR FEAT.Citation?
I mean, I'm not going to follow it, but it would be good to read it myself.
Found it thanks to Cheapy.
Sean Reynolds wrote, "When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?"
I used to take the same stance as well, then the developers stated quite clearly that it was their intent all along for the PLAYER to create the NPC, since it was THEIR FEAT.Blew my mind.
really? wizards had the complete 180 of that opinion, i guess it banned without question from now on.
So for Leadership, the DM's input should be limited to the following:
1) Player character generation restrictions: If the DM would disallow a certain type of player character, he should certainly disallow an otherwise identical cohort.
2) Geography: If the cohort as described by the player is not local to the region where the player characters are and the player has no good story as to how or why the cohort would get to where they are, he may want to let the player know that that cohort is not immediately available, leaving it up to the player to decide whether to wait for the cohort he wants to become available or come up with an alternate idea that would be available sooner.
Next best is probably improved initiative. But since everyone always says to take, that conversely makes me not want to take it.Improved Initiative is one of those odd cases where it only has value if someone doesn't take it. If every single character takes Improved Initiative then everybody wasted a feat.
Only if by "every single character" you mean every player character and every monster encountered. It is not a waste for any or all player characters getting an initiative advantage over encountered monsters.
Still, there is clearly less consensus over the best feat vs. the worst feat -- any clear "best feat" for all characters is just asking to be nerfed at the earliest opportunity as being overpowered. It is far easier to come up with a feat that nobody would want to take than one that every possible player character would take over all others.
|
|
I used to take the same stance as well, then the developers stated quite clearly that it was their intent all along for the PLAYER to create the NPC, since it was THEIR FEAT.Citation?
I mean, I'm not going to follow it, but it would be good to read it myself.
Found it thanks to Cheapy.
Sean Reynolds wrote, "When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?"
Have to disagree with SKR on this - what a surprise!
Players don't dictate NPC stats - in the case of an animal companion or familiar the stats are pulled from a Bestiary and are fixed (and then modified by class abilities).So as to custom building the NPC I would say a resounding NO to the player with the leadership feat.
He can ask me for a specific type of NPC, but that doesn't mean he gets to stat out a CharOp'ed Meat shield with a Cha of 5.
He'll get a generic NPC with some class, feat and skill specialization that fits the role he is looking to fill and that's it. The stats would be built from a book (GMG or NPC guide or upcoming NPC Codex) and would be just like any other Bestiary type stats - pre-built with no PC input or modification.
Not saying I would give the player junk, he just gets the basics. A big component of this discussion - and the inflated perception of the power of this feat – is that the player gets to build his NPCs and then have them serve him like automations.
I used to take the same stance as well, then the developers stated quite clearly that it was their intent all along for the PLAYER to create the NPC, since it was THEIR FEAT.Citation?
I mean, I'm not going to follow it, but it would be good to read it myself.
Found it thanks to Cheapy.
Sean Reynolds wrote, "When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?
When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?
When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?"
You were only ninja'd by about two hours. :P
Still, it's good to have it apart from that "quote blob" I have up thread.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players building their own cohorts is kind of like being told "go pick a switch." Most of you will not know what that means, but suffice to say, you want to build it good but not so good that the GM will see it and say, "negative ghost rider, I'm going to build you one instead."
I haven't had it come up in a while, but I'd handle cohorts much like PCs themselves. Bring me your concept, let's talk about it, maybe I'll have some suggestions for you. Or maybe the roleplay of the campaign is such that if you take Leadership, you pick one of these NPCs that have been following you around as your cohort, and then they get better and you can "assume direct control."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have always found that a collaboration between player and DM results in far cooler characters than when made by either alone.
The conversations before putting pen to paper, bouncing ideas off each other, feeding on those new ideas, plus the DM having the power to break the rules (slightly) in your favour for a cool story idea, all this stuff!
This is true for any aspect of your character, and it is just as true for cohorts.
A war between player and DM only has losers. Co-operating in character and story creation only has winners.
You know it makes sense...!
I agree Malachi, but sadly, my GM's idea of "working on a character together" involves my coming up with an idea and proposing it to him, only to have him completely ignore it come up with his own completely different (often inappropriate/less sensible) idea, and then going with that his whether I like it or not.
I've since stopped proposing character ideas to that particular GM. There was no compromise, give or take, only take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And so, the thread is about Leadership after all.