Would you be cool if the GM took control of your animal companion? The same wording is used with them. Nothing dictates "how loyal" they are, after all.
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.
In the rules for leadership, the cohort is explicitly an NPC. Therefore, it uses the rules for building NPCs. (I assumed the elite rather than standard array because it was more charitable to your argument, and more common in my experience.) It is certainly a GM’s prerogative to give higher scores if they wish, but it would be a house-rule to do so.
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. . . .Though you are outright wrong on the -2 level.
I’m sorry, but you should read it again. Here’s the relevant quotation. “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.”
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 text doesn’t give a source for funding cohorts, because there is no special source to fund a cohort. A cohort who is traveling around with the PCs must somehow be equipped, and with no other source of funding, its PC (or the whole party) is the only source.
I was going to respond to more of your comments, but I'll wait until you read the rules again. It's not worth discussing how to change the rules until we can agree on what they say in the first place.
Sure it does. The cohort is equipped as an NPC. After it joins you then it gains loot from group splits as determined by the group/you.
The text doesn’t give a source for funding cohorts, because there is no special source to fund a cohort. A cohort who is traveling around with the PCs must somehow be equipped, and with no other source of funding, its PC (or the whole party) is the only source.
Actually, the NPC section of the rules gives rules on how to determine an NPC's equipment.
Step 6: Gear
After recording all of the NPC's class features, the next step is to outfit the character with gear appropriate to his level. Note that NPCs receive less gear than PCs of an equal level. If an NPC is a recurring character, his gear should be selected carefully. Use the total gp value found on Table: NPC Gear to determine how much gear he should carry.
1) No where in the feat itself does it limit the cohort to the Elite array or how the ability scores are customized.
If a feat says you can cast magic missile once/day, but the feat itself doesn't give the mechanics for the spell, do you let people invent whatever mechanics they want for the spell?
The feat itself says the cohort is an NPC, and the system has rules for creating (get this) NPCs. Look at that! Rules for how to make a cohort!
You can Rule 0 this if you like, sure. But the system as printed works the way the system as printed works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped reading after it said the GM should make and control the cohort and not the player.
Does the GM also choose which weapon the fighter's Weapon Focus feat applies to? Does the GM dictate when a player can make use of his Power Attack feat? Of course not! Why should Leadership be any different?
Even the game designers have said this, so I think I will run the feat as it was intended, or not at all.
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 the Designers have also said that there are campaigns in which the feat is not appropriate, which is why it has been banned from PFS.
What the Designers have intended is that each GM should make the decision for her or himself as to how the feat should be run in their own campaigns, so everyone is using it "just as it was intended." And that includes not using it at all if that needs be.
Of course. Everyone should run the games in the manner that is most fun for their group regardless of what the rules say. Most of them are just guidelines anyways.
I'm just making it clear to everyone how they were intended to be used by the game's designers. I'm not saying you can't change it up to suit your group if you want. Just know that having the GM make AND control a cohort makes it just another NPC, not a cohort. Once you've done that it has no direct mechanical benefit for the PC anymore. He might as well have spent his feat on something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PCs building the cohorts/followers themselves can get absolutely ridiculous. To those who say the PCs should have total control, how would you feel if I showed up to your game with the following crowd at my back:
Followers:
one Luck domain cleric for each party member (so they can roll twice on every roll they make)
two witches with the hexes Evil Eye and Misfortune
four witches with the hexes Cackle and Misfortune
rest of the followers are Dual-Cursed oracles with the Misfortune revelation
Cohort:
Void school wizard
Suddenly, every battle looks like this:
Void wizard uses Reveal Weakness to give the BBEG a no-save no-SR debuff to saves and AC
First witch uses Evil Eye to give additional -2 to BBEG's Will save
Second witch uses Ill Omen with a Piercing Metamagic Rod to force BBEG to roll BBEG to roll twice and take the worse on his next roll (no save)
Third witch uses Misfortune on the BBEG, who is now taking -4 (at minimum, assuming the Void wizard is still only level 5) to saves and rolling twice, taking the worse.
If he still miraculously manages to roll high, all of the Dual-Cursed oracles force him to reroll any high rolls (no save or SR) until he fails his save.
Once Misfortune hex has stuck, the witch who stuck it starts Cackling, and the remaining witches/oracle use Command to stop the BBEG from taking any actions.
So now the fight is over without the PCs taking a single action. Granted, this assumes a single BBEG, but even with multiple enemies it'd work nearly as well, unless all of the enemies have ridiculous Will saves.
I know I know, probably no one in this thread is advocating letting PCs build such broken/powergamed followers. But the "boundary" of what enters the realm of powergaming is extremely ambiguous, and unless there is good communication and trust between the GM and player, the player could do something ridiculous like this.
And of course, there's also the realism question of - where exactly did you find all these Dual-Cursed Oracles and witches with Extra Hex?
If I had a lot of experience with a player and trusted their ability to make the game fun for me as a GM and for their fellow players, I would allow them to build their own cohort, as long as I retained veto power. If I was dealing with a player who has any history at all of attention-hogging or powergaming, I would follow the advice from this thread and ask them, "What type of cohort are you looking for?" and then build it for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the one houserule my GM put in place. Followers are not combatants. If you want them to be, stat them individually and write up a paragraph or two on who they are. This is still prone to "abuse" but only the most hell bent powergamer will full stat out and write unique backgrounds to dozens of people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PCs building the cohorts/followers themselves can get absolutely ridiculous. To those who say the PCs should have total control, how would you feel if I showed up to your game with the following crowd at my back:
"Nope, come back with a different set of cohorts and followers and don't hog the spotlight. I look forward to seeing what you come up with next."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To those who say the PCs should have total control...
I really don't think that anyone here has said that. A GM should scrutinize cohorts with as much vigor as he does the main characters. This is also true of any new feat, ability, or mechanic.
For example, if we're in a strictly European-style game, the GM shouldn't allow Eastern samurai characters and cohorts that would prove disruptive to the game.
In any case, if even the game designers reccomend this...
Play a summoner, whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a summoner cohort whose eidolon will eventually take Leadership and gain a really loud and opinionated monk with vow of poverty who refuses to adventure with anyone who doesn't also take a vow of poverty.
...then I guess the GM will just have to step in and do what's best for his games.
I think people are overestimating the resolve of most GMs to deal with these issues. I played in a game where the Undead Lord had three bloody zombie dragons and a horde of bloody skeletons that did all four elements of elemental damage to everyone around them, just by standing adjacent. The GM knew it was broken, the players knew it was broken, everyone knew it was broken. It ruined the game. And no one did anything about it.
I think it's far easier to say "tell me what you want, and I'll build it" than to tell the player, three sessions into playing with the cohort and followers that they've painstakingly crafted, "you're ruining everyone's fun, I'm taking away your toys, go back to the drawing board."
I can't even imagine using followers as combatants. The cohort, sure, but followers? Makes for a great thought experiment, might make for ONE good fight, but wait for one fireball to take out half your followers and permanently dump your leadership stat and see how "overpowered" your followers are now.
The only way I would use followers in combat would be in a mass combat scenario where my gang of mostly 1st level warriors was taking on a similar gang of 1st level warriors. I certainly would not send them up against anything that would be a level appropriate challenge for the PC.
I might create a follower as a witch to ward my character or another as a UMD skilled wizard to use wands or some such but it's pretty risky regardless. Otherwise I relegate them to menial labor such as cleaning and repairing Fort Rannick in Rise.
I could see a paladin or cleric taking leadership to get a paladin or cleric cohort from their order to train.
Likewise; bards, Druids, monks, and wizards would take it for an apprentice.
Fighters and barbarians may take a bard on to write about their adventures
Rogues may take on anyone as a partner wether it be a flanking tough guy, apprentice, or as a diversionary lookout.
Rangers might be the only core class that would shy away from a cohort.
Unless there was another really good reason for taking leadership, these are the options I would give my players.
Exception: the party is lacking a _____, then the party leader takes leadership, and everyone has a say as to what/who would best benefit the party as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what, after reading this, I've changed my mind. I'll let the player build their cohort. I dare them to push the powergaming. I have unlimited tools at my disposal, and you think your tiny toolbox can break my game? MWAHAHAHAHA.
I thank everyone who has joined into the conversation so far for a fantastic thread. Giving future GMs or any who want more info to have something to come to and chew on in their minds for their games. I'm pleased it's turned into a rather educational thread for the most part.
Perhaps the next step in the conversation may be to define what 'GM takes control of the cohort' portion of my post (though is already being touched upon by others). I will do that next time I make a reply - I promise!
LowRoller, I want to thank you for your response with more information on how you'd handle leadership. I was wanting to squeeze out solutions from you and was really happy with what you posted. Disagreeing with me is fine, I just wanted more than simply "I don't like it - won't play with it." post that didn't help anyone. I would have been sad if that was all it came to.
Blueluck,
1) We agree some form of house-ruling will probably end up taking place. I've no disagreement with your response.
2) You are right on point two. mdt corrected me on that point and I admitted it in one of my previous posts (though I am unsure if you read it so I concede the point here).
3) I generally assume hand me downs to the cohort to a large capacity with a few direct upgrades from time to time. You are assuming that it will generally come from the PC who took the feat for it. As a game master I certainly would be working to make sure the cohort isn't lagging behind too bad in some form of manner. I try to direct things to make it enjoyable to have a cohort instead of being a stickler that ruins the fun.
Not sure exactly if we'll end up truly agreeing on how things will be played out. I think our debate stems more from what is assumed through rules versus ideas on how to make leadership doable for a GM without ruining their game. Perhaps I think the miscommunication is more the angle on which we approach leadership instead of any specific written rule.
I mean the previous comment in the sense that you assume: Cohort = NPC, therefore, go to NPC section to develop NPC; Then assume that PC with feat is the be-all-end-all for gear and necessities for that NPC.
It isn't an incorrect assumption of the rules at all. I as a player can agree with you on those points if my GM had no experience or ideas on how they wanted to handle leadership. As a game master, I have a plethora of ideas how I handle the feat personally and wouldn't necessarily subscribe (except maybe to be lazy integrating it) to that way of thinking.
The ultimate goal of me as the game master is to make the game as enjoyable as possible for everyone. I would direct to my earlier mention that I intend to post clarifying more ideas and intentions concerning the GM taking control of the cohort to flesh that out more. I think that may be what is needed in this thread/discussion most.
So we have two options from here.
1)You continue responding to my comments and as "iron sharpens iron", we work things through a bit at a time.
2) I would like to ask you what you would do to allow the leadership feat to work. You've pointed out you disagree with my methods, how would you handle it that would allow other GMs to consider unbanning it for their games?
Ravingdork - I would direct you to the #2 option just above this sentence I directed to Blueluck, since you've entered into the arena after not reading the entirety of everything. I notice a lot of people gladly bash but many don't bother to come up with their own solutions to the problem. I've read plenty of your posts and know you are very logical and do like to think things through.
So problem: Many GMs Ban Leadership Feat outright which I think is a shame to an extent.
In the military, I was always forced to come up with at least 3 solutions before I was allowed to complain about a problem. In this thread I gave several and more pop up that I never thought of as the thread develops. Some parts (particularly the GM running/creating it idea) are obviously unpopular. What would you do to make things workable even for those who are apprehensive about the feat?
You know what, after reading this, I've changed my mind. I'll let the player build their cohort. I dare them to push the powergaming. I have unlimited tools at my disposal, and you think your tiny toolbox can break my game? MWAHAHAHAHA.
Meanwhile, all the other players at the table are sitting around having 0 fun...
@kyrt: all of those examples (save the mount) would fall under the exception I posted. As the DM I would figure out what the part needs based on their suggestions and plug it in. The cohort would be run by me as DM, but I would also take suggestions from them and work with their strategies.
Anything else would be a DM plot device/ follower/ hired expert. The DM has the ability to say no, and that is the rough guide to my allowances for the leadership feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My solution:
Every PC has leadership if they roleplay the acquisition of a cohort and followers.
No feat required.
While the feat is powerful, I don't actually see how it is a problem. Is adding an NPC or a sub-PC to the group any different then adding an extra player?
That's the problem.
How is that a real problem? A druids pet has better combat potential and doesn't penalize the ability to aquire a replacement should it die.
I don't need to comment the eindolon even.
What about paladins mount, it gives the character absurd combat potential (I'm looking at you lance).
Does the elven scout that shows you the way and helps you fight off bugbears that invaded his village break the game, hardly. If people are afraid that the cohort will break the balance, maybe they should ban the powergaming min-maxer, not the feat with near infinite roleplay and plot potential.
Our last fighter took it, he had a young witch as his cohort who focused on keeping him safe with debuffs and hexes, only to later become a grand witch heir and leave the fighter she spent years with so the party could leave a demiplane controlled by hags without being skinned alive.
It's only as broken as you let it be, a character two levels behind with raggedy hand me downs is an asset, not a game breaker.
You know what, after reading this, I've changed my mind. I'll let the player build their cohort. I dare them to push the powergaming. I have unlimited tools at my disposal, and you think your tiny toolbox can break my game? MWAHAHAHAHA.Meanwhile, all the other players at the table are sitting around having 0 fun...
You misunderstand me. If players want to bolster the party's overall power, I'll throw harder enemies at them. The fighter wants a dedicated buffer? I'll have a choker snatch up his minion, forcing action from anyone in the team. If I had a little less GM finesse, I could see the problem you mention cropping up, but I got it.
I can't even imagine using followers as combatants. The cohort, sure, but followers? Makes for a great thought experiment, might make for ONE good fight, but wait for one fireball to take out half your followers and permanently dump your leadership stat and see how "overpowered" your followers are now.
Says the guy who hasn't seen 100+ wizard apprentices, each with their own scrolls of magic missile, unleash a volley of death upon their foes.
Ravingdork - I would direct you to the #2 option just above this sentence I directed to Blueluck, since you've entered into the arena after not reading the entirety of everything. I notice a lot of people gladly bash but many don't bother to come up with their own solutions to the problem. I've read plenty of your posts and know you are very logical and do like to think things through.
I went back and read it all after the fact.
Still a few things I disagree with. Still, if it makes you feel better, I used to run it that way too. My opinion changed after the Pathfinder developers made their intentions clear, and all of my players openly considered the feat worthless if all they got was a GMPC.
I can't even imagine using followers as combatants. The cohort, sure, but followers? Makes for a great thought experiment, might make for ONE good fight, but wait for one fireball to take out half your followers and permanently dump your leadership stat and see how "overpowered" your followers are now.Says the guy who hasn't seen 100+ wizard apprentices, each with their own scrolls of magic missile, unleash a volley of death upon their foes.
While that does sound absolutely amazing, doesn't leadership say that followers use NPC classes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No it does not. Even if it did, adepts have a decent spell list and can take ranks in Use Magic Device.
Whenever I take Leadership, to save time and energy, I usually choose them from the GMG's NPC Gallery or from the NPC Codex. Ultimately, you would see a full stat block for my cohort, and then something like this:
Minions: Your other followers generally stay within your kingdom and handle your personal affairs while you are away, leaving your homeland only when called upon. They primarily consist of rogues and clerics. However, you are often accompanied by two battle mage and two battle monk bodyguards (as presented in the NPC Gallery in the GameMastery Guide).
OR
Followers: Though he has countless other servants, Keon Chul’s personal retinue of fanatics are as follows: 4 battle mages (GameMastery Guide 256; possess wands of magic missile rather than shocking grasp), 4 noble crusaders (NPC Codex 46; possess Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Spellcraft rather than Combat Casting and Diplomacy, respectively), 8 investigator wizards (NPC Codex 179; possess Craft Wondrous Item rather than Improved Initiative), 14 poachers (NPC Codex 129), 26 skulking brutes (NPC Codex 144), 100 superstitious mercenaries (NPC Codex 80), and 170 various other 1st-level NPCs (generally acolytes, nobles, and spies). Each of these fanatics all consider themselves followers of Iomedae, but are absolutely loyal to Keon Chul first and foremost, and will die (or even fall in the case of paladins) for him and his goals if need be. They each gain a +4 morale bonus on Will saves against enchantment spells and effects. Additionally, they each gain a +2 resistance bonus to saves against fear effects when within 360 feet of Keon Chul.
Like Guts and Schierke.
Our last fighter took it, he had a young witch as his cohort who focused on keeping him safe with debuffs and hexes
Ha ha, yeah, that's a fair comparison. I hadn't realized it till you said it. For some strange reason I first thought of a game called Knight's Contract, where a cursed knight fights along a witch.
@Billygoat
It was actually meant to Ninja guy. You posted right before I did :D
As for the cohort thing, the big factor is that you have to fund your own cohort. It's not realistic to ask your party to split the loot to the cohort as well, as it'd give you double share, so the cohorts DC's will lag behind. That's why they make great rogues, healers and buffers, because they can hit you with a friendly spell with no problem.
The moment you come with a lvl 10 fighter supported by a level 8 wizard focused on fireballs, I'm gonna have to giggle at either how under geared the cohort is to meet enemies at this level, or how the warrior is struggling because he used half his share to keep the wizard at a decent gear for a few fireballs.
Buffers are the way to go because they can perform decently with just a raggedy potato sack. And of course, the rp potential.
I never factor in min-maxing or cohort having leadership too because I trust my players or tell them outright go either stop min maxing like a crazy person or find another group, but these cases are so rare that they aren't worth factoring into the feat.
I won't ban Power Attack because a player might find a way to quadrupple his damage potential, I'll take him aside and tell him to get his shit straight.
No it does not. Even if it did, adepts have a decent spell list and can take ranks in Use Magic Device.
Note to self: Use the follower magic missile volley
How is that a real problem? A druids pet has better combat potential and doesn't penalize the ability to aquire a replacement should it die.
I don't like animal companions and the like either.
How is that a problem? If you have only three friends interested in playing in a game you run, are you going to say "Sorry guys, I won't run it unless you can find one more person"? Or if you have six friends, are you going to choose one to not let play in the game? How about what happens if no one wants to play a healer or a fighter type, are you going to force someone to play a class they aren't interested in? Unless you are running a game at a convention or somewhere where you have more people interested then can actually play and you are handing out pre-gens you will have to tailor the game (whether it is store bought or you made it yourself) to fit the party. The existence of an extra character doesn't change that.
You are supposed to adjust the difficulty if there are more or less than 4 player characters, it's built into the xp/cr systems. You're not supposed to adjust the difficulty for a cohort, just like you're not supposed to give the monsters extra HP if the party fighter takes Power Attack or have them do extra damage if the party cleric takes toughness.
If a PC takes a cohort and you start building challenges like there's an extra party member you're just screwing the party over because one of them took a feat.
How is that a real problem? A druids pet has better combat potential and doesn't penalize the ability to aquire a replacement should it die.I don't like animal companions and the like either.
So leadership, while largely the same, is simply an easier target by virtue of being a feat rather than a class feature?
So leadership, while largely the same, is simply an easier target by virtue of being a feat rather than a class feature?How is that a real problem? A druids pet has better combat potential and doesn't penalize the ability to aquire a replacement should it die.I don't like animal companions and the like either.
Yes.
Personally when i run games I do have players take other available options rather than animal companions.
So leadership, while largely the same, is simply an easier target by virtue of being a feat rather than a class feature?How is that a real problem? A druids pet has better combat potential and doesn't penalize the ability to aquire a replacement should it die.I don't like animal companions and the like either.Yes.
Personally when i run games I do have players take other available options rather than animal companions.
What about familiars? How do you treat summons, unseen servant, et al?