| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Preface
Leadership is one of the most debated feats within Pathfinder as to the level of power it holds. New game masters often find difficulty handling players who take this feat to detriment of their game. Often times the feat is banned in many games due to improper handling of it in the past or fear of what it may end up creating in the future. I write this treatise in hopes to aid in handling this often ignored feat by game masters and players alike. Though be aware, this treatise written with the game master as the intended audience!
I hope that once you’ve had a chance to read through my treatise on leadership, that you may include it for the enjoyment of all in your games. Ultimately, it is up to you – the GM – whether or not I made a case to allow it and embrace it. This is less opinion that you should use it, but how to handle it if you do allow it.
Leadership as I intend to present it can be both NPCs helping the party, or the feat itself being involved in your game. The feat is more a power gauge guideline, I believe, on where the cohorts should be in relation to the party. Even if you decided not to allow the feat, allowing side-kick NPCs can easily follow the same guidelines in the background to keep any of the players from being overshadowed. Thus, the “Game Master PC” problem can also be solved this way if done properly. Remember Rule 0 applies!
How to not make having cohorts too strong.
The primary fear of having cohorts and followers is the dreaded idea that one player becomes twice or more powerful due to action economy. Instead of a challenge, the extra set of hands simply makes your puzzle that much easier to overcome. But is it truly the extra character that is the problem or where the character comes from?
If you allow any NPC or Cohort to assist the party: always generate that character yourself!
If the power to generate the cohort or character is placed in the player’s hands – it will give them more room to take advantage of it. Unless you absolutely trust the player making the cohort to not go overboard and/or metagame just don’t do it! They will most assuredly design it to squeeze the most of it that they can.
Instead use this as a chance to help them out without going over the top. When generating a cohort it is a great chance to try out different prestige class setups! Ever wanted to see how a pathfinder chronicler would do? The cohort can have some splash of classes to try it out! Mystic Theurge? Well, my PC is a witch apart of a coven – I think a cohort who is both a witch (evil-ish feel to its build) and an oracle (goodish feel to this side of the build) would be fantastic role playing opportunity! It can be enjoyable to try something different, but also that the cohort themselves aren’t nearly as potent while still being helpful in some form. This case is made due to the universal agreement, even on the paizo forums, that prestige classes are not near as “optimized” or “powerful” as straight levels would be. Heck, some folks on these very forums have commented that some archetypes are meant for NPCs! Cloistered cleric anyone?
In addition, make the cohort/NPC based off their position, personality and experiences. So a retired fighter could dabble with some levels of expert as a farmer or blacksmith. Could technically be a certain level to satisfy leadership feat requirements without them being “full power”.
Concerning combat actions – let’s continue with the thought that the character is multi-classed towards a specific prestige class. A mystic theurge (played by the game master) would use their actions to ‘buff’ the party. This takes away their action economy to bring down your BBEG as fast but still feeling useful enough to keep around. It keeps the PCs as the stars of the show. Keep in mind thatthe game master should be taking the actions on behalf of the cohort as much as possible!
The leadership feat is best used as a plot-device to assist the players along the story points instead of being an additional PC. The role play aspect usage can be the feat is spent to open up an NPC to fall in love and marry the PC! Not a character that stays back and slaves away for the party for meager rations. The players must take into consideration rations, water and loot priority with the cohort involved as well. As joked about often in some circles and comics, the cohort is a ‘named character and therefore doesn’t die willy-nilly’. Keep the character as someone significant and with their own agenda like any other significant NPC in your game and you’ll do fine.
Recap:
1) Don’t let the player determine what the cohort is or how it is built.
2) You the game master always or almost always should remain in control of the character for leveling, combat and role play agenda. Let the players fret over rations and loot or pay.
3) Have fun with the build of the cohort to try different things and support the party in other ways in combat than being a mere super beat stick or glass cannon to make the party uber.
4) Make the character significant to the story, or at least the PC’s story of whom they are tied to.
5) The characters don’t have to be the result of the leadership feat to show up and have an impact.
Different uses for leadership
Plot Points
The characters meet an NPC who eventually becomes significant and joins the party! But – what does the new addition bring in baggage? An angry spouse they left? A Lord whom they owe money seeking to collect? A spy in the midst who secretly works for the BBEG that eventually changes their ways as they adventure with the party? Use your imagination!
A Pirate’s Life!
What better way to use the leadership feat than to use it to ensure you’re the undisputed captain of your pirate ship? The cohort can be your first mate, while the followers are your pirate crew! What if the cohort is the butler of your mansion/castle while the followers are the various servants whom you give QUESTS to? They could alter the campaign’s story arch in some way depending on success and failure. Means you, the PC, are not always doing the legwork. It would certainly make the world feel more alive that you got peons to handle the goblins this time around!
Perhaps a diplomatic game requires a decent following – your power within the courts of the kingdom being dependent on the size of your following. The possibilities are large indeed.
Leadership as a means to make the “Low Magic Campaign” work!
Of all the different avenues one can take advantage of the leadership feat, the low magic setting lends itself best. Often players on the paizo forums argue that without proper equipment player characters are left in the dust when facing higher CR beings. Enter leadership or NPCs that make up for actual or perceived lack of magical equipment! The magical buffs that equipment are normally given can be granted during combat to the party to bring them up to snuff! The extra attacks can also be handy to even things out a bit. Stories don’t always have a single hero or heroine – they often do have a troupe that gets them through when things get rough.
FAQ?
What is defined as a special power for the +1 benefit?
I would recommend looking at this old and rather short post on the forums that dabbles in it. I don't think you'd want me to write another huge post on what it could mean.
Should I allow the cohort to also take the leadership feat?
This post on cohorts with leadership should help when determining this. I would personally say no.
I thank you for reading this short essay on my personal thoughts on the leadership feat. It isn't the answer to everything but can help those with little experience with it. I want this to be helpful or clarify things a bit. If I missed anything that you think would be great to add, feel free to respond and let me know! It is a collection of thoughts I came up with, confirmed based off other threads and more or less compiled for this post.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my GM made me a crappy 3 Fighter, 2 Expert and told me this was my cohort, I'd look that character in the eye and say "You're fired." The I'd go find someone USEFUL.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have actually tried any of the things you recommend in play?
But my blaster would LOVE a buff oriented caster to take some of the magical burden off his shoulders, and the RP opportunities of having a 'minion' to boss around (who is nobody's servant, ThankYouVeryMuch) would be a hoot to play out.
Really, an entirely new character for the usage of one feat is ridiculously overpowered. But this take on it- using that feat the give the party what the group actually needs (in the DM's view) instead of what it wants is perfect.
Leadership is great for getting a buff and healbot, or filling gaps without adding significantly to the party damage. Right now our group doesn't have a Rogue. It would be really nice to get one through Leadership... and the role play opportunities of a Rogue constantly trying to steal and scheme against the party would be fun (so long as it doesn't get out of hand and/or nothing significant goes 'missing').
Why not just work together (player and DM) when creating a Cohort? Its the character's Feat.. not the DMs. While interesting combinations can be handled when putting a Cohort together and I agree a Cohort should never shine above the PCs, it also should not be someone or something the player does not want.
Also while at first roleplaying and maybe combat should be handled by the DM, ultimately that should be given to the player. It really depends on your group and how seasoned your players and DM are.
These are all good suggestions. I have more of a laissez-fairer approach to character development and if it fits the setting and story, I'd almost always allow it. I feel like ultimately the DM can balance out any power problems.
If it's a feat the player buys, then it should be the player in charge.
If the GM is going to put an NPC in the party according to his own specifications and machinations, he shouldn't be charging the PC a feat for it.
Agreed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen cohorts be problematic, and I've seen them be a great boon to the party. I agree that the player SHOULD NOT build the new character. They should get a lot of input on what they would look for in a cohort, but if you let the wrong player build his own cohort, you'll end up with another character that is basically as strong as the PCs...
Now, as a DM, I do let my players control their cohort under the stipulation that they are still NPCs and control can be taken by the DM at any point, for a few seconds, minutes, or weeks if need be. I let the players level the character up, but I don't allow them to multiclass their cohorts without approval.
Cohorts definitely make for great role playing opportunities if you have the right players.
The other take on the player built cohort is "I exist to create magical items for my leader" man. He doesn't usually participate in battle... he just stays behind and crafts things. All day long, every day, 365 days a year.
The other take on the player built cohort is "I exist to create magical items for my leader" man. He doesn't usually participate in battle... he just stays behind and crafts things. All day long, every day, 365 days a year.
Nice work if you can get it,
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I handle leadership and cohorts like this :
A) You take the feat, great. Let me know a level or two ahead of time, tell me what you want, and let me set things up in game.
B) Take the feat. I create the NPC Cohort. You get input on what you'd like in a generic sense (I'd like a cleric who worships X god). I create the specifics of the character, and give it a background.
C) You control the cohort, but I reserve the right to override if I think you are abusing it. "No, Billy the Crafter does not yell "I'll cover you guys from the dragon, run!" and charge the ancient wyrm. He's already running away, shedding a tear for his soon to be lamented master."
D) If you don't like the cohort, that's fine, tell me, and next level, you and the cohort can part friendly ways. Tell me what you want as a replacement, and I'll work it into the plot so they are there before they become a cohort.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other take on the player built cohort is "I exist to create magical items for my leader" man. He doesn't usually participate in battle... he just stays behind and crafts things. All day long, every day, 365 days a year.
I had a mechanist wizard who's cohort was a small workshop enchanted with an Enlarged Animate Object, then Awakened. I gave it Alchemist levels and put a ring gate inside it.
It could fire bombs at targets through the other end of the ring gate (which was mounted on my Shield Guardian's chest) and crank out potions and Infusions all day every day.
It had the personality of the ship's computer on the Heart of Gold.
Best Cohort Ever.
The other take on the player built cohort is "I exist to create magical items for my leader" man. He doesn't usually participate in battle... he just stays behind and crafts things. All day long, every day, 365 days a year.I had a mechanist wizard who's cohort was a small workshop enchanted with an Enlarged Animate Object, then Awakened. I gave it Alchemist levels and put a ring gate inside it.
It could fire bombs at targets through the other end of the ring gate (which was mounted on my Shield Guardian's chest) and crank out potions and Infusions all day every day.
It had the personality of the ship's computer on the Heart of Gold.
Best Cohort Ever.
What are you doing, Dave?
I've seen cohorts be problematic, and I've seen them be a great boon to the party. I agree that the player SHOULD NOT build the new character. They should get a lot of input on what they would look for in a cohort, but if you let the wrong player build his own cohort, you'll end up with another character that is basically as strong as the PCs...
Now, as a DM, I do let my players control their cohort under the stipulation that they are still NPCs and control can be taken by the DM at any point, for a few seconds, minutes, or weeks if need be. I let the players level the character up, but I don't allow them to multiclass their cohorts without approval.
Cohorts definitely make for great role playing opportunities if you have the right players.
In the only campaign I've been in with a Cohort, the Cohort is built on fewer points than the PCs, and the Cohort gets a much smaller share of treasure. So while in his specialist area, a Ranger (Archer), he is very good, outside of that he is only a little helpful. And at times even while pumping out arrows, they just weren't getting through the DR 10/-.
The other take on the player built cohort is "I exist to create magical items for my leader" man. He doesn't usually participate in battle... he just stays behind and crafts things. All day long, every day, 365 days a year.
He can't craft for you when he has been kidnapped and forced to craft for your enemy.
The other take on the player built cohort is "I exist to create magical items for my leader" man. He doesn't usually participate in battle... he just stays behind and crafts things. All day long, every day, 365 days a year.
Then charges you full price for them, because he is an NPC. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem I'd have with the GM keeping strict control over the cohort is the feat says you gain the ability to attract a loyal cohort. This is little different from the wording used with animal companions and familiars. While they shouldn't be used as an exact finger puppet, imo, they are loyal to you. If you can't GM them that way then you shouldn't allow the feat. It would take a fairly extreme request for a loyal subject to outright refuse to do something.
Also, the cohort is described as a character with class levels based on the grid provided. If you try to hand a player something with NPC levels then you're intentionally gimping your player.
Quick question: when you take a cohort do you roll it like a character? Does the DM, or do you use NPC stats?
You use the heroic NPC array and equip them like an NPC but they have heroic class levels as dictated by the grid in the feat description.
I generally never allow players to take the leadership feat when I'm GMing, but it has nothing to do with thinking its overpowered. Part of it is just that it can really slow the game down. If there's a cohort and a bunch of cannon-fodder followers tagging along, there's that many more turns to go through in the initiative pass, and there's weird issues with experience rewarding, level tracking, and distribution of loot. Not worth the headache.
Mostly though, it's that making friends doesn't strike me as something that should be handled mechanically. If people are making any attempt at all to roleplay, they should be able to make friends with NPCs of varying levels of power and loyalty, possibly including some who are willing to tag along and help out. If I want to reconcile that with the leadership feat, there's really only two ways I can think of to swing it.
1- Anytime people make friends with someone to the degree that they're willing to help out, I force someone in the party to take the leadership feat and make them into their cohort. Now I'm just kind of arbitrarily punishing the players for making friends by taking feats away. Not cool.
2- I allow both to exist at once. So... the rest of the party is earning allies the hard way, by helping people out and gradually earning their trust and respect.... and then the one guy with the high cha and no better ideas suddenly summons forth a best buddy out of the aether, with whatever slapdash justification we can think up on short notice. This doesn't strike me as all that fair either.
I suppose splitting the difference between the two also works, where anyone taking leadership can only recruit people introduced as allies to the party, but... there there really isn't any actual benefit to the feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope you tell your players all of this, in writing, before they build characters for your game. Personally, after reading it carefully, I would simply never take Leadership in a game you run, and I would advice my fellow players to skip it as well.
Cohorts don't make a character, "twice or more powerful". First, cohorts are built on the Elite Array, which is a 13 point-buy with no customization. Second, they're always at least two levels weaker than the PC. Third, they'll never have as much equipment as the party members because their equipment comes out of their PC's budget. (That is, unless the PC somehow manages to con the players into cutting his cohort in for a share.) So, a cohort is a character with poor ability scores, poor gear, and -2 levels.
Then you intentionally build poorly. On top of all those disadvantages, you're going to look for a "agreed upon" weak build, like a bad prestige class, or a Witch/Oracle - two casting classes, each casting with the other's worst ability? Your attitude seems to be, "Try something fun for the GM, and avoid anything that functions well." Which is like saying, "Screw the players, the GM's gonna have a good time!"
Then, after making really crappy cohorts, you're going to control all of them as the GM? So, with 5 players, if each has a cohort, you're going to take 5 turns each round of combat plus all of the enemies' turns, while your players each take one turn each? That sounds like a recipe for extremely bored players.
You should let the player decide some things, but I feel that letting the player build the character is a bit much. Have him define what he wants to recruit and then he talks to guys around down. Maybe he wants a rogue so he goes to the seedy part of town. Maybe he wants a wizard to join him, so he goes to the local academy.
And in terms of controlling, this isn't just a NPC that is wondering around with the group. This is a cohort. He should be loyal. The player should be able to direct him in combat (barring some exceptions), otherwise it may as well just be some tag along NPC.
I would allow 1 character with leadership, but the whole group has to like them and agree to keep them. It would need to be a utility character like a healbot, utility caster (no gods allowed) or an expert of some kind. Basically a bard from what it seems.
So much paranoia from a single feat. This is rather bizarre to me.
In my current group two players including myself have leadership. We treat the followers as if they didn't even exist for combat purposes. The cohort gets their own init though and both of us players custom built our cohorts. Guess what? The game is still challenging and fun.
|
It's a lot of paranoia, yeah.
Would I allow a player to totally powergame his cohort? No. No more than I'd let him totally powergame his main PC. In both cases, I want the player to make something where the concept and the stats mesh well. I expect a short (+- 1 page) background for the cohort that tells me who the cohort is and where he's coming from.
Things I'd allow/disallow:
* Magic Item Crafter: sure. The crafter would probably be weakish in combat, so that's a downside. Unless there's a very crafting-focused PC in the party; in that case I'd ask the player not to compete for the same crafting feats.
* Healbot: sure. Unless there's a healbot PC.
* Bodyguard for a wizard: probably yes, unless the party fighter is built around S&B defending the party or something.
* Cohort with Leadership; turtles all the way down - no. No recursion.
* Summoner/caster that summons monsters - no.
See the pattern here? A cohort shouldn't compete for the role of another PC. Also, the cohort shouldn't be time-intensive, so cohorts that bring additional minions aren't welcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this runs into the player/GM trust issue.
If a GM doesn't trust their player to abuse the Cohort, don't allow Leadership.
If a player doesn't trust their GM to turn the cohort into a waste of a feat, don't take Leadership.
If the player and GM can communicate and mutually come up with a Cohort that they're both satisfied with, then Leadership is a go.
I like some of these ideas, but I'm of the opinion that a cohort should be treated like a familiar: During combat, the player controls the NPC because it's following orders (and it acts on his initiative), but outside of combat, it's a separate being and, as an NPC, is controlled by the GM. The player can still task it, but it won't be 100% loyal. The book doesn't state HOW loyal it has to be, and as someone who lost a ship to a mutiny during a game, I have to admit, there was a reason for that and it helped bring the game back to the power level it should have been.
As far as the GM creating the cohort, I'd say sit down with the player as the cohort's being made and have restrictions, it shouldn't be built as a full character, even though it's leveled down, it's an NPC and should be built as one.
I do agree the cohort should have a reason to be following the PC around, or there wouldn't be any realism, I've retired a character or two because of a loss of interest on the side of the character (Cleric running around with his brother, brother dies, he decides to go live in a temple). While you could easily build a Sakura character (following Ryu around hoping to become his student), it's better to have a character with more depth, even as an NPC.
I don't think the point of this was to say that Leadership's a bad feat, I think it was a response to people saying that (which I've seen in quite a few places here on the forums and heard from GMs and players during sessions).
Oh, and for the item creator cohort, you build that in my campaign and you'll find he's not selling to you at cost (but is saving you some money, mutually beneficial) and he might run low on supplies or have made things you're not looking for from time to time.
I wish to thank everyone for their replies to my post. Now I think is a great time to add more meat to it in response to those who have responded. That meat coming in the form of other thoughts added to the discussion that I believe this thread has easily become one of the more useful leadership feat threads - if not the top one based off what I've searched for already on these forums. As such, I won't rehash what you amazing people have already touched upon (or at least not at this point in time).
Many of you have amazing feedback that explains your reasoning so much clearer than I could ever hope to touch. However, I have noticed horrendous reasoning skills on the part of some that I see being a key problem for introducing the leadership feat into a game. You have two problem children when it comes to Leadership feat issues: Those who want uber; and those who don't read the feat properly. The feat gives amazing leeway to the game master as to what can be done.
Point 1: Those who want uber
If my GM made me a crappy 3 Fighter, 2 Expert and told me this was my cohort, I'd look that character in the eye and say "You're fired." The I'd go find someone USEFUL.
If it's a feat the player buys, then it should be the player in charge.
If the GM is going to put an NPC in the party according to his own specifications and machinations, he shouldn't be charging the PC a feat for it.
This was a somewhat amusing read. So the solution for GM's to allow the feat is to take away any possible use or fun the player could have from the feat..
You may argue these aren't wanting uber, but I am using that as the catch all term that players will complain when they don't get their way. You can already see the negativity and problems stemming from their comments already. Though Ascalaphus has to his credit given more details on how he'd handle the leadership feat.
Response of Slade's post - I would count that in the same category of a follower dieing on the leadership feat grid. Though other GMs may rule it differently and that is their prerogative. I'd say you can't kick people out willy nilly without it somehow negatively affecting you. The intention is not to bully you as the game master but that in real life you can't always know the fully potential of someone.
This is a player breaking the 4th wall because the character isn't "uber" or useful enough. Your character knows nothing, or should know nothing in terms of levels or character information besides what is role-played. The failure is now on the player's part due to meta gaming - not the game master.
Response of Ascalaphus's post - That's weak reasoning for the value of a feat. It's already commonly accepted that leadership is one of the most - if not the most - powerful feat in pathfinder. Most feats involve a couple + bonuses to something such as weapon focus giving a +1 to hit (not even damage!), or even a more respectable +2 to some sort of save. But these bonuses are too low, let's not charge a feat for them!
In light of that argument you'd think me nuts to even compare! But let's assume that weapon focus is a good feat charge while leadership isn't per your observation. I'd easily blow that out of the water if my cohort can buff, then Bull's strength beats out (when it matters) the +1 to hit. On top of that, the buff can be extended to other PCs and even stack with other buffs such as magic weapon, enlarge person to get an ever increasing value from it.
A feat is extremely inexpensive for the leadership ability, if allowed to abuse it or get decent mileage (not just via combat or crafting) out of it. If you have a terrible game master that doesn't make it work in the story (through being enjoyable to have in some manner), then I would agree it's a waste. I would direct you to Mystically Incline's comments on the matter that puts it more succinctly than I can:
I think this runs into the player/GM trust issue.
If a GM doesn't trust their player to abuse the Cohort, don't allow Leadership.
If a player doesn't trust their GM to turn the cohort into a waste of a feat, don't take Leadership.
If the player and GM can communicate and mutually come up with a Cohort that they're both satisfied with, then Leadership is a go.
Response to LowRoller - I thank you for your comment of it being an amusing read. It is better than it being nail on chalkboard at least. But this thread is primarily how to make the leadership feat usable by even game masters who ban it normally. Therefore, while I would normally consider your post bordering on trolling - I think we can use this as a teachable moment for everyone and be mutually beneficial! I will lead this to all those I have responded to thus far:
Please give more information as to why it would detract from your fun instead of simply that it will. Let's bring your complaints out fully to examine how we can overcome perceived problems. Though it falls into three categories: You will never be pleased except with a broken sidekick somehow; there is miscommunication as to what I am trying to portray; or that it's merely a matter of preference on handling that is different.
Point 2: Those who don't read the feat properly.
I have noticed a fair bit of angst over often misconstrued due to a couple of things: They don't read and understand the feat in it's entirety or get a different thought on how things are supposed to work. This can come from some bulb in their head lighting up or seeing how it was done by someone else.
For the best example I will direct you to:
I hope you tell your players all of this, in writing, before they build characters for your game. Personally, after reading it carefully, I would simply never take Leadership in a game you run, and I would advice my fellow players to skip it as well.
I first want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. In fact, for those that may be seen as negative, yours at least has some thought and reasoning to it. I simply want to state I am responding as a teachable moment for those who may want to dabble with the leadership feat. A friendly debate if you will.
Cohorts don't make a character, "twice or more powerful". First, cohorts are built on the Elite Array, which is a 13 point-buy with no customization. Second, they're always at least two levels weaker than the PC. Third, they'll never have as much equipment as the party members because their equipment comes out of their PC's budget. (That is, unless the PC somehow manages to con the players into cutting his cohort in for a share.) So, a cohort is a character with poor ability scores, poor gear, and -2 levels.
I am enthusiastic that we can discuss an integral part of the game so in depth thanks to the time you put into your post. It allows us to come on the same field of reasoning to make clear a few key points. I would be curious to know what you are referencing specifically to make your points.
Having read and re-read the leadership feat, of which you certainly challenged me to do, I believe you are merely on a different line of reasoning.
1) No where in the feat itself does it limit the cohort to the Elite array or how the ability scores are customized. This would mean you are using the creating NPC section to make it - or have some self imposed limitations on doing such a thing. This is also something that Buri has mentioned as well. As a game master, I use Rule 0 to improve enjoyment of the players.
2) Per cohort level you can not first attract (recruit) a cohort more than two levels below you. Per the last paragraph concerning the cohort level in the core book and SRD - your cohort is limited to being a single level behind you after they join you. The two level limit does not infringe at any time after they've joined - one level lower is the accurate number once they've adventured with you. The difference, between 1 and 2 levels can be very drastic.
3)No where in the feat does it say that the gear is from the PC's budget. This is merely commonly accepted reasoning that may be a stigma to the leadership feat. As with anything, I would personally expect hand me downs from PCs to the cohort or those odd items no one else can use to best effect. Lesser gear? Sure I'll give you that. The rest of your reasoning is coming from where exactly? It's certainly no where in the leadership feat text.
To wrap up in response to your final conclusion in this section: None of the comments concerning ability scores and gear are covered at all in the leadership text. How you as a game master wish to handle it is between you and the players or vice versa. Though you are outright wrong on the -2 level.
Then you intentionally build poorly. On top of all those disadvantages, you're going to look for a "agreed upon" weak build, like a bad prestige class, or a Witch/Oracle - two casting classes, each casting with the other's worst ability? Your attitude seems to be, "Try something fun for the GM, and avoid anything that functions well." Which is like saying, "Screw the players, the GM's gonna have a good time!"
I had to think on how to respond to this. It seemed very aggressive to what I wrote. I don't think doing a prestige class is 'building poorly' in any sense. It is generally perceived as weaker for a PC to multi-class. Though it's not for the PC to play as their main character - so why should it be 'optimized'? Do you or your GM not use flavor or story telling to make things happen? Do the NPCs have life to them or are you the kind that dungeon crawls, gets loot and makes money - rinse and repeat? I personally like characters (PC and NPC) in my game with some dimension to them.
I would direct you to Point 1 about making an uber character. You've not made any point different than the others concerning this.
As for the GM wanting to have fun - they are players in the game too, last I checked. Often times the feat is banned for the very reason they aren't having any fun with that feat being used. So what you are proposing is that me attempting to make a feat playable for the enjoyment of all is bad because I am attempting to make the feat playable for the enjoyment of all - to include the game master?
Also, if I make a decent multi-class character for story purposes and even the feat - what does it matter to you? Again, we end up breaking the 4th wall. I never would want an NPC to be showing up the PCs as the star of the show. You either see the NPC as a character or you see the NPC as a character sheet - which is a failure on the part of the game master if they allow the latter to happen.
Then, after making really crappy cohorts, you're going to control all of them as the GM? So, with 5 players, if each has a cohort, you're going to take 5 turns each round of combat plus all of the enemies' turns, while your players each take one turn each? That sounds like a recipe for extremely bored players.
Most of the time? Sure. Combat? I don't see any issues with the players running them - personally. Though if the players are slow on the ball and the combat begins to drag because of it? Heck yes I will take control to keep things moving. There are plenty of players that take a long time to figure out what their PC is going to do - It is my job as the GM to ensure fun for all, which can include speeding combat up. If a player wants to control two people, they better be able to handle it in a timely manner. There isn't anything in the feat to determine that I can't do that and the discussion on how to speed things up can very easily be a different thread entirely.
I love the 'what if..' things to try to disprove a point. So 'what if I have 5 players that have a cohort'.... concerning combat I would direct you to:
During combat, the player controls the NPC because it's following orders (and it acts on his initiative)
Suddenly the game isn't as bogged down anymore. There isn't anything that says you can't combine their initiative with the PC - an extra perk for having the feat. After all, there seems to be a LOT of people that feel it would be underpowered how I present it otherwise.
So as a game master, I am doing and would handle things as I posted. I believe you (the reader) can ascertain what methods I use when making the cohorts myself based off the responses I am posting now. As you can see, the problems become workable as we work through the potential issues together. Though to be honest, a team of 5 PCs all with leadership feat becomes an entirely different beast of a storyline and campaign! I think it would be rather fun. Two seperate teams the players can play for co-op dungeon exploring anyone? No more would there be an issue of "which tunnel path should we follow"!
Remember that this treatise is an overall usage to make the leadership feat more enjoyable for everyone. If you require an uber cohort to enjoy the feat, want one that is tied to the story, that emphasizes something tied to your character, talk to your GM. I am not saying this is the only way to handle leadership that everyone will enjoy. I do believe the advice on this forum will be immensely useful for those who read it in the future. Knowledge = Power. Just like everything in the core books and beyond, you take what you like, leave the rest in the dust!
-----------Response to other posts---------------
Googleshng - I believed I covered most of what you were pointing out in the previous section as far as slowing the game down. To respond directly to you forcing the feat onto someone: I disagree unless you are going to award it for free as a reward of some sort. It could be that the leadership feat in that instance is allowing them to keep a specific NPC they've met. Without it, they only adventure with it maybe once or twice or a level or two - very temporarily. It's a way they can keep their favorite character around more or less permanently if you so chose to do it that way.
Lord Foul II - I'd honestly have to read up on Thrallherd before I could go into more depth relating to that.
Byrdology - I actually like using Heroic stat array when making cohorts or "named characters". I create it as a full character on Hero Lab. I'm the game master but I do make the cohorts with the various quirks of my personal campaign and the PC class/abilities in mind.
KutuluKultist - Why yes, yes I do use the concepts presented here to great success.
To everyone else with positive and thoughtful responses: I thank you VERY much for making this thread more substantive than previous leadership feat threads. It gives others a chance to see the other side of the spectrum as to what can be done!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually stray away from Leadership.
But if I GM, I allow players to gain followers if they behave and act like a true leader. Or if they are otherwise incredibly persuasive/tactful/roleplay-really-good
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sean Reynolds says the OP is wrong about who designs the cohort.
/thread
Mr. Reynolds is a developer.
Mr. Reynolds may make decisions about rules.
How the game is run, however, he does not make rules about.
His opinion is that the player should design the character.
That is all it is, his opinion.
Unless he wishes to errata the feat to say 'The player taking the feat makes the npc' then all NPC making still falls, per the NPC chapter, under the GM's domain. How he would do it in his game is just that, his game.
If he does errata it, I can live with that to. I will simply houserule ti back to the existing rules.
Work with what is the reputation of the charcater and design followers who would be excited by followint that kind of person. Give them personality quirks give them quirky pasts, some of which might cross with eachother, give them attitudes towards other pc,s cohorts then let the pc run them in character, remind them they are not telepathic drones, but indoviduals discovering themselves and eachother, and being discovered by your pcs. Let the. Wander in where they fit in the narrative and it will add spice rather than be a dulling super assist.
It's an open/ shut case. Players should run their characters by the DM. If a PC wants to do something special, then they should talk out what all that entails.
I've really never been a big fan of Leadership. As a player or a DM. In my games now, I'm really strict with it. I generally later players have their choice of NPC Codex characters as cohorts. If it's not something in there, it's really closely relegated. I tend to try to keep things relevant to the world. Having a player suddenly pick up a cohort that's nothing more than a craftbot or a healbot just isn't really fitting.
Sure, this infringes on a player's general right to have full control of their own character, but I'd argue that Leadership is one of if not THE strongest single feat in the game. Without being careful, it can totally throw off the balance of a group.
I love the leadership feat, both as a player and a GM. In my campaigns I removed some of the argument against it, just by how I operate it.
I give each player the feat for free (but at 9th level). This hearkens back to at least 2nd ed (maybe earlier, but I don't remember), where certain classes automatically had armies, cohorts, or followers once they reached 9th or 10th level.
Since I give them a free feat, which gives them a cohort plus a decent group of followers, I require that they recruit the NPC from within the game before they get the feat. If they have not cultivated a relationship with any NPC, then they don't get the cohort until they do. They can still have groupies (read: followers), but they won't have a sidekick until they build a rapport with one.
This works especially well with the AP's since they are often written very well to include many different personalities that you encounter. Most of them make for at least decent builds, and they have a connection to the story and don't need to be shoehorned in.
I let the player control combat, and leveling afterwards, since by the time they get them at 9th most of the choices have been made and anything more is either to even them out or make the best choices for the path they are on.
The only time I step in as a GM, is when they suddenly become suicidal (see the "I will stand in front of the dragon" rationale above). They are not mindless automatons, they are people with goals and dreams just like the PC's.
Overall, Starfell, I think the issue will always remain as long as it is treated as a feat at a cost. Spending a feat for it seems to have most players want to maintain absolute control. For a lot of GM's they think the players get too much for just a feat (at least these are the most common arguments I've seen about it). Once you give it for free, it modifies the relationship a little. Just my 2cp
Why it would detract from the fun?
It's quite simple. A side character that I don't get to build or control in any way is not my cohort, it's just another NPC the GM uses.
You can write as many walls of text you like but in the end your suggestion is not a solution to allowing the feat, it's just a concealed way of dissallowing it.
Pretty much sums it up. ^^
@Aardvark Barbarian: While I like the idea of it I still see some problems: If the players are limited to the NPCs they meet one player could just get no cohort because he doesn't like the NPCs they meet or they are too slow (ie another player is faster with the one NPC another one would have wanted as cohort). And on the other hand you might end up with vastly different power levels in cohorts. Or do you adjust them?
How about alignment problems that were not visible before hand?
Example: The party meets a dragon (say an APL+2 encounter)and succeeds in talking him out of attacking them. One player is especially nice to the dragon, gifts him something he likes and compliments him etc, would you allow the pc to have a dragon cohort come level 9?
@Aardvark Barbarian: While I like the idea of it I still see some problems: If the players are limited to the NPCs they meet one player could just get no cohort because he doesn't like the NPCs they meet or they are too slow (ie another player is faster with the one NPC another one would have wanted as cohort). And on the other hand you might end up with vastly different power levels in cohorts. Or do you adjust them?
How about alignment problems that were not visible before hand?Example: The party meets a dragon (say an APL+2 encounter)and succeeds in talking him out of attacking them. One player is especially nice to the dragon, gifts him something he likes and compliments him etc, would you allow the pc to have a dragon cohort come level 9?
I didn't go into the mechanics as I was already rambling by the time I got out the base of what I was trying to add on how to deal with the base as a feat.
As to your questions,
No cohort or cohort taken by another: First, they aren't required to have one, so if they decide that none of the NPC's works for them, then it is their decision not to take one. Now at the same time, as a GM, you can see the interplay between the PC's and NPC's and if they know they only get a cohort from the presented NPC's they may become more involved with them. That way, if you see that someone just isn't clicking with any of them, you have to ability to build any NPC you see fit that they would.
Different power levels: Even if everyone in the party takes Leadership as a feat they would be at different power levels, unless all your PC's have the same Chr and qualities that affect the level of cohort. It pushes the idea that Chr has a use beyond the caster classes that need it or the "Face". Also maybe as PC's it pays to have great renown, or fairness and generosity, and avoid being cruel or aloof with the people they interact with.
Alignment and dragon (answer relative to both questions): So, when the PC's reach 9th, we look at the score they have and the NPC they would like to recruit. Say they met them at 3rd level, and had decided to work on a friendship with them. You total up the PC's score based on all the factors, and that is what level the NPC is when it adopts the role of cohort. So if the PC has a mount and a different alignment, they know they don't always agree and that their pet comes first. This affects the NPC's motivation to be a companion to the PC but the PC has established Great renown and has a 'special power'. The end result is they break even, and the NPC is handed over as a lvl 6 cohort (assuming no Chr mod for ease).
Another PC has befriended a dragon, but the dragon is easily more powerful than the PC. The great beast realizes he would feel put upon to constantly care for this puny being. Once the PC is high enough level (leadership score) for the dragon to realize that it would be in its interests to work with this person, it shows up ready to help. So the PC can hold out on having a cohort until he is high enough to convince the dragon to leave its lair and hang around with him. As it stands they can't have a dragon until the score is high enough anyways, unless they take a cohort then ditch it as soon as it's not as useful as a dragon. Then again, that could be 'aloof' to dismiss them so 'cruelly'.
All the modifiers under the leadership feat are still useable. Either the NPC gets bumped up to the power level up to what the PC can have as a cohort, or the PC waits until they are powerful enough to draw the attentions of a higher level cohort (have a leadership score that allows it). It's not like NPC's have their level stamped on them when they interact with the PC, so there is no reason for the PC to assume the NPC was any level other than what they were when handed to them as a cohort. Either way the power will be offset no more or less that it would be by every PC taking the feat in the first place (which rarely happens in my experience).
Like most of my posts, looking back I don't know if what I said is clear, if there are any questions let me know and I'll try to expound some more.
Like most of my posts, looking back I don't know if what I said is clear, if there are any questions let me know and I'll try to expound some more.
Seems clear enough for me. Thanks for the throughout reply. Sounds like a nice way to do it. And it might award players for not killing everyone.
i find the key to leadership is having the players deal with the level 1s and 2s they get besides the cohort
this tends to turn people off to leadership but the way i see it you can't just disregard them because you don't want them.
they are apart of the feat it would be like saying i want power attack damage but not the lower to hit part of the feat
2) Per cohort level you can not first attract (recruit) a cohort more than two levels below you. Per the last paragraph concerning the cohort level in the core book and SRD - your cohort is limited to being a single level behind you after they join you. The two level limit does not infringe at any time after they've joined - one level lower is the accurate number once they've adventured with you. The difference, between 1 and 2 levels can be very drastic.This isn't going to change your opinion or anything, but the cohort does max out at two levels below you. If they ever get to the point where they would level up to your level minus one, they just stop gaining XP and become stuck right on the cusp of that level.
If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than your level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed to attain the next level.
I actually will concede this point. I was trying to a quick-through (as you can see - didn't work very well) on my second post. For that, I myself am guilty in that regard of not reading the leadership feat in point 2 of my own post. My hats off to you, and concession to Blueluck on that point. Thanks for correcting me!
Sean Reynolds says the OP is wrong about who designs the cohort.
/thread
You did get a great response by mdt that still Rule 0 applies even though he is a developer. He doesn't say, though it may have been implied, on whom designs the cohort. He merely asks the question in such a way as to make us think on exactly how it all works out.
Why it would detract from the fun?
It's quite simple. A side charachter that i dont get to build or control in any way is not my cohort, it's just another NPC the GM uses.
You can write as many walls of text you like but in the end your suggestion is not a solution to allowing the feat, it's just a concealed way of dissallowing it.
I don't know if you know what the definition of a cohort is, but you got it entirely wrong. Allow me to fix it for you:
A side charachter that i dont get to build or control in any way is not my animal companion, it's just another NPC the GM uses.
My cohorts in real life are not some people I've created because they suit me. Just correcting that point. Then, you get back to the point that it's simply an NPC (which ultimately it is - shock!) that appears out of nowhere when the feat is taken. Have you played in a campaign with the leadership feat or has the GM banned it in your game as well?
Since you are on to something I would like to ask - exactly how do you propose making the leadership feat work that would change the minds of hundreds of GMs to let it be used? Clearly, my way of tying the character to story significance isn't the way - according to you. But I argue clearly the reasoning you are working with leads to the very reason the leadership feat is banned in most games. So, what do we do with both of our approaches that is helpful rather than not? Give some meat other than, "I just won't take it or enjoy it." Let's get some meat to the discussion because you aren't giving any kind of solution to the problem.
I can also make the case that no one makes you take the leadership feat. I agree to Blueluck that is reasonable and responsible of me to make it clear how I handle leadership in the games I run.
Also, no one that has made the statement of how my reasoning is bad has given ANY explanation as to how leadership is handled (if not outright banned) in their games that makes it enjoyable for them. Either I've made an argument you can't really argue against, or you've never truly experienced the leadership feat to have any idea how many different methods it can be handled. As a good friend of mine would say: Can't knock it till you rock it.