What about familiars? How do you treat summons, unseen servant, et al?
I leave regular familiars alone but probably wouldn't allow Improved Familiars.
I leave summons alone, since there is an opportunity/risk cost in spending a full round summoning them.
Unseen servant has never come up in a game, but I don't see much of a problem with it power wise.
I've also toyed with a compromise of allowing animal companions but using a variation of the 4e rule where the Druid (or whatever class with a pet) would get only one standard action between the Character/Pet each turn, which would cut down on my action economy issues.
Master Summoner
I don't allow any version of the summoner class either.
Wow, dude.
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
Yeah. A 1st-level scroll at CL 1 only costs 12.5gp to make. That means you could arm your 100 wizard apprentices with one 100d4+100 damage volley for only 125gp. And the best part? You only need provide them with the materials. Let them make it themselves. That way you get 100 scrolls (or one volley) each day.
It's one of the cheapest high damage attacks around.
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 volleyYeah. A 1st-level scroll at CL 1 only costs 12.5gp to make. That means you could arm your 100 wizard apprentices with one 100d4+100 damage volley for only 125gp. And the best part? You only need provide them with the materials. Let them make it themselves. That way you get 100 scrolls (or one volley) each day.
It's one of the cheapest high damage attacks around.
Although, if I were a GM faced with that, it would probably end in a high death count from a Dragon strafing them or burrowing earth elements. Still fun, though.
Lets go about this another way. What are the reasons GMs feel the need to control the cohort-making, and the cohort playing.
First, a disclaimer. I see no difference between me controlling my cohort and the GM doing so. Why? because the cohort is loyal to me. If I tell it to do something, it should do it. If I have made a plan with it, it should carry it out. Since talking in a fight is a free action, I should be fine. If he wants to have his own life outside, as long as it does not conflict with the game, it is fun flavor that I do not have to worry about. If the behavior is objectionable (falling in love with a maiden from a village, and refusing to leave town), then I call shenanigans on the GM. No animal companion has to worry about falling in love will a local poodle, nor should my cohort (unless I have discussed this with the GM). So the loyalty phrase to me suggests the type of person who will willingly go to their demise, but if they have been suckered by me, they might die realizing it, and also my Leadership score will tank if I in fact am abusing the cohort or the followers.
Second: making the character. Some problems that have been mentioned:
1) he outshines the rest of the party. If my cohort who is two levels
behind the rest of the party can outshine a Barbarian in damage with second hand gear (assuming I am not giving up what I want for them), the Barbarian is either doing something wrong, or doing something different. Either way my cohort is filling a new role (cannot play the drums as well as the Barbarian who used one feat for skill focus Perform(drums) instead of a combat feat, but deals more damage), or he is doing the same thing as someone else was doing two levels ago.
2) dedicated crafter in a tower. Huge weakness. The universal truth of minmaxers is the more you max, the more you min. If the cohort can craft super-well, he cannot defend himself super-well. Unless I hire guards for him, really fortify the tower, or spend a lot of effort making sure that his location is secret and his supply deliveries cannot be traced, I should expect any bad guy worth his salt to attack my Rapunzel. The payoff is huge: many more, cheaper items. The risk is also huge: If I do not block tons of divination, hire guards, and set up a secret delivery system, any villain who wonders at my party's abundance of items will destroy my cohort. If I am spending all this effort, and am succeeding, I deserve the reward.
3) dedicated healer. Just as much of a weakness as a normal healer. The more I maximize the healing potential, the more I minimize his everything else. Since healers are primary targets in battle, he has to be defended. Either will good armor, buffs, or a logical stat assignment (cannot tank my CON and DEX to boost CHA for healing surges and WIS for spell power). For the benefit of healing, their are associated risks.
This boils down to what I see as player entitlement. We want to have cool things, of course. But with cool power comes cool responsibility. No fighter complains when monsters are tough (but within his capabilities). If a fighter chose to be more of a strategic type (maybe put a 13 into INT, but drop the STR a little), she should not complain if she can no longer carry as much as before. It is a choice she made with consequences. Reductio ad Adsurdum: if she wants to play a halfling outcast who won acceptance for hes military acumen (dropping STR to 7 to boost CHA and INT, and taking a further -2 for size), it is not her place at all to complain about not having armor he can wear without being encumbered. Similarly, a Wizard who decides that all those spellbook defending spells are a waste of time should not complain at all if a savvy enemy steals his spell book. Every choice to maximize something is a choice to not do something else. The cohort is no different. The closer the cohort gets to party level in some ability is resources being funneled from something else, creating a potential weakness.
Actually, the NPC section of the rules gives rules on how to determine an NPC's equipment.
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.
Yes, the rules do say how to determine starting equipment. I was speaking of ongoing equipment, and should have said so more specifically. 3,450 gp (starting equipment for an elite 5th level NPC) isn't going to go very far.
In our Kingmaker game two players already took leadership at level 7 and I am just now building my cohort for my level 9 feat.
The biggest problem I see is the fact that those of us without leadership and/or companions have had less part in combat since the others got it. Which is one of the reasons of wanting to have a cohort myself.
At the moment we have 5 players, 2 cohorts, 1 eidolon or summoned creature (sometimes more) and one biting wolf mount. So at the moment I have 1/8 of combat time. After I have my cohort it will be 2/9 of combat for me but only 1/9 for those two players without cohort/companion.
For my scarred witchdoctor I could well see her having a monstrous companion but as I got no high Cha loosing a cohort will mean a devils circle that makes the feat useless in short time. So I have to choose a companion that has some real chance to survive alongside me.
I already build a witchguard ranger as one possible cohort and with every monstrous cohort given on the d20pfsrd site I'm thinking "woha is that squishy, I'll stick with my ranger." Most of the monsters have not even half the hp my witch has. Some have a third or a quarter. Sure, I could take a lower one and give it class levels and the toughness feat but still they remain squishy.
I'm playing a fighter/rogue with the leadership feat in the Kingmaker campaign. My PC is the leader of a mercenary company that was recruited by the current ruler.
At this moment I don't have a cohort. First because as a mercenary captain, I focused more on the company and then selected my followers (I chose the iconics to ease things). Second because in a campaign such as Kingmaker, i think it's better to select one of the already existing NPCs (even if you change them a little) rather than creating a cohort.
In our last game, the party has suffered several losses and at least anoher player will take a PC with Leadership. We lost our healer and as noone really wanted to take this role, he proposed that the cohort of his character will be focused on healing the party.
Nevertheless, I must say that I agree Umbranus on monstrous cohorts. Their equivalent cohort levels are too high compared to their Hit dice, which makes them squishy and of little help for the party.
You can have a 6 HD Bralani as a 11th level cohort, so when the party is 13th level. At this level, the bralani is very fragile, has a hard time to do something with its attacks or its SLA (level 2 or 3 spells). And the highest CR for a monster cohort is 12, and it is considered the equivalent of the 17th level character.
And for some other monsters, it's even worse : Erinyes or Avoral has considered 15th or 16th level while they only have 9 HD but they pay for their True Seeing SLA. I agree that such a power should be taken into account but this is far too much.
Although, if I were a GM faced with that, it would probably end in a high death count from a Dragon strafing them or burrowing earth elements. Still fun, though.
That's one dead dragon, since his breath weapon's ranger is not greater than 110 feet.
Also, readied actions will take care of that earth elemental. It will be like playing a game of "whack a mole" with no chances of missing.
The only way to really beat these guys with monsters is to send a creature that is immune to force damage/magic missile, or otherwise can outrange them (such as by a fireball bombardment). Probably the most dangerous thing you could send against them, is an opposing team of wizard apprentices using similar tactics or something they can't find and target.
@ Ravingdork : a single Agathion Leonal ca deal with the 100 1st level wizards with Magic Missile scrolls.
Constant Lesser Globe of Invulnerability + at-will Fireball => 100 dead wizards !
Arguably, that only works if your apprentices are evil.
Anything with shield cast on them would work as well.
The biggest problem I see is the fact that those of us without leadership and/or companions have had less part in combat since the others got it.
THIS. Giving a player Leadership means their turn takes twice as long. Letting the rogue take a fighter cohort, that's fine. Letting the cleric take a druid cohort will probably lead to a lot of extremely bored players.
Discussion between player and DM is the best way to handle Leadership. When I took the feat in my campaign, I tried to ensure that the cohort would not take extra time in combat. Her main functions were originally intended to be granting a daily bonus to the party (as a 1st level Harrower), thieving stuff (opening chests, disabling traps, etc.), and out of combat healing. She was not a very able physical combatant, so I try to keep her out of combat as much as possible.
I recently started a new character and campaign, playing a spellcaster with the intent to becoming a magic item creator. Starting at 3rd level, I've already taken Create Wondrous Item, and quickly discovered that there is NO WAY I can take all the various craft skills required to make even half the items I want to be able to create and still have skill points for other things. So I decided that I am going to take leadership at 7th level, with the intent of founding an artisan shop with my followers, utilizing my wizard(diviner) cohort to organize and run it. I realize that this is going to require a LOT of investment on my part, and I want someone capable that I can trust to watch over it while I do other things. That sounds like just like that type of thing a cohort would be perfect for!
She will be semi optimized only, more for flavour then for DPR or spell-botting. I plan on keeping this person out of the fray as much as possible, as she is much more valuable to me keeping to shop running smoothly. She won't be the enchanter (that's MY job, thank you!), but strictly there for her organizational skills, Knowledge checks, divinations (I *DO* want her to keep an eye on things, after all), Appraising goods for enchantment worthiness and a bit of security for my workers. I designed her to be shy (so no limelight stealing), reclusive (no real sense of ambition, content to follow) and curious (hence the Diviner; how else does a curious/shy wizard combo learn things?).
I've done most of this on my own, with input from the DM as appropriate. I intend to play her, although if the DM takes the reins from me on occasion, I won't scream. He trusts me to not break the game and I trust him to not break my toys. I could have designed this cohort to be a buffing machine, or a Magic Missile machine gun, or any other combo that would make her much more useful in combat, but I instead looked at my back-story, the plot and the world I am going to be interacting with, then decided to create an interesting, colourful and useful character that will occasionally be just what we (or the DM) will need at crucial moments.
Now, why should this be banned?
**EDIT** BTW, I did consider a bodyguard fighter, all blinged out with feats, items and combos to make her a little whirling ball of bladed death. But I thought that this choice would be much more interesting and useful, in the long run. Plus, I have a soft spot for shy girls... ;)
Joex The Pale: Spellcraft is the only skill a spellcaster needs in order to craft magic items.
I look at the rules slightly differently. It states in the Magic Weapons and Magic Armour sections that you require a masterwork item for enchantment. So, I extrapolated that out to imply that all items require masterwork components for enchantment. Therefore, unless I wish to purchase such an item (which could easily be explained away as part of the item creation costs, I know), I need to create it. And if I want to create a headband (Craft-jewelry), and cloak (Craft-weaving) a figurine (Craft-carving) and a belt (Craft-leatherworking), that would take a lot of crafting skills on my part. Hence the desire to create an artisan shop.
Plus, all the items created that are NOT up to par for enchanting can be sold off as simple high-end goods to fund the shop, the workers and the creation costs themselves. Not to mention the sheer plot gold I'm handing the DM to deal with burglaries, labour disputes, "protection" offers and opening markets for the items. So, even if RAW says that I don't need to do it this way, I'm still going to because it looks like more fun. ;)
Forget the skill ranks. Just get your intelligence up to 30. That will give you a +10 modifier. Then you can take 10 on your craft check to get 20, enough to make pretty much anything, and masterwork at that.
Combine that with the fabricate spell so you can make items much more quickly too.
As I said, there's little to no reason to put ranks into anything other than Spellcraft when it comes to crafting magical items.
*sigh*
I'm not interested in taking all those skill ranks. THAT'S that the followers are for.
Also, I'm trying to make an interesting backstory and give my DM things he can use to tie me into his game. I know there are easier ways to do it, but *poof* you have a new Headband of Vast Intelligence +2 doesn't have the same panache as getting word from my cohort via a message spell or familiar delivered note that my jeweler has finished the golden torc inlaid with silver runes and set with a cats-eye gem that I required him to create for me to my exacting specifications. She also informs me that the enchanting chamber is ready with incense, warmed pillows and my favorite tea in expectation of my arrival. Also, when I arrive, she has a had a request from a local rich merchant for the creation of a cloak that requires my personal attention. I receive this note on the heels of a vigorous session of "convincing" the local thieves guild that leaving my guild-house alone is really in everyone's best interest. MUCH more interesting then taking 10, don't you agree? :)
Now, quit raining on my parade. Party-pooper! :P
What Ravingdork is saying is that you don't *need* to put a single rank into a craft skill as they can be used untrained.
Are you even reading my posts Joex?
Spellcraft should probably be maxed anyway, so there's no skill investment for making magic items. If you need a masterwork breastplate to enchant, just buy one instead of taking 4 months to craft it yourself.
I think you just contradicted yourself. Spellcraft is a skill. 20 ranks is not a small investment over the lifetime of a character.
Okay one of my fellow players just got a ship, doesn't have leadership feat. But since he has a ship he thinks being captain he gets treated as if having it. Advice to either shut him up?
Either shut him up or help him out?
If it's his ship he gets to call the shots on who is on board. That's typically how it works. That doesn't mean anyone who buys passage has to stick with him after the trip though.
If he wants the benefits of leadership then he needs to take the feat.
Yeah, he doesn't get Leadership, what he gets are a bunch of hirelings who expect to get paid. Their loyalty likely varies widely as a result.
Leadership gets you that loyalty. Money sometimes does.
I'd rather hire a band of professional mercs with references than a bunch of scoundrels from Riddleport.
Or, instead of hoping the "right" kind of player comes along why not just publish the rule so others can know in advance?
kyrt-ryder's got it.
I think you just contradicted yourself. Spellcraft is a skill. 20 ranks is not a small investment over the lifetime of a character.
But there are many reasons you already NEED Spellcraft. You NEED Spellcraft to identify spells as they're being cast. You NEED Spellcraft to copy spells to your spellbook. You NEED Spellcraft to identify magic items.
The fact that you also use Spellcraft for making magic weapons is just a bonus. If you're a wizard and don't keep Spellcraft maxed, I won't say you're definitely doing something wrong, but... you're probably doing something wrong. That's why I say crafting has no skill investment - the only skill you use for crafting is one that you would keep maxed whether or not you are a crafter.
In my games Leadership is not a feat. I house ruled it out and treat it much the same way 2E handled followers if you built a stronghold to attract them. So if players want it they need to do something to Attract followers. I found this works much better that just allowing it to be taken as a feat.
Are you even reading my posts Joex?
Yes, RD, I am. And I know you have a point and that I don't NEED any of those other skills. I do realize that. If I hadn't made that abundantly clear, I shall do so now; I know you don't need the Craft skills, I know you can create items using Spellcraft and/or spells.
My point, which I was trying to make in a round-about fashion, you can create a character that HAS Craft skills and creates his own magic items from scratch. I have a few NPC's in the game which I DM that do similar things. My mage in question has taken ranks in Craft-calligraphy so that he can craft his own Pages of Spell Knowledge, from scratch, to assist the sorcerer in the party. Your way is the hand-waving way, which is fine and legal. The way I was describing, mainly to illustrate the point that Leadership CAN be taken in a way that is not OP and is not aimed at making the character more powerful but more interesting, is more of a story driven way. The cohort is designed with a background, personality, skill-set and history, not just a batch of feats and spells designed to make me more powerful. Don't get me wrong, I didn't gimp her and she will be an asset to me, but I specifically designed her so she wouldn't be useful in combat, nor be a spell-bot.
I guess the main reason I was being so obstinate was that I have read through your Crazy Character Emporium, so I know you can create interesting characters. I suppose I was just expecting a Bravo for the work put into trying to craft something as interesting, not a "Here's a way to nullify that" comment.
Joex is an example of why Leadership should be allowed. Raviningdork might be an example of why it shouldn't be allowed. It should really be decided on a player by player basis and not on a "because *I* can break it that means all players *will* break it". Shouldn't you give players the benefit of the doubt until they prove themselves incapable of handling something appropriately before you punish them?
Joex is an example of a player that I would award a cohort through roleplaying without making him spend a feat slot to "acquire" one. Raving Dork is an example of why I may never allow the feat again. I don't need to impose a tax on good roleplayers, and I don't need it as an arsenal for munchkins.
First off, thank you. Second, I don't think that RD is an example of why it shouldn't be allowed, I think that is being harsh. I've read some of his character creations and he makes interesting builds. I think the problem is that he also thinks in the terms of maxing out the potential in every way possible because that's what players tend to do, which there's nothing wrong with, as a player. But creating an NPC, especially a support character, to those same exacting standards will tend to make other players, and possibly the DM as well, nervous. If the cohort he is bringing in is maxed out to the point of outshining the other players, that creates a problem. Villains and PCs should have spotlights on them, support characters should be there to support. And sometimes, if the character concept calls for it, sometimes not being maxed out in power potential can be just as fun.
My character is going to be a Cleric/Mage/Mystic Theurge. It is not the most optimal character design, but I wanted to try the MT and the party make-up, game story and character history decided me to go with a sub-optimal combo to create it. I also wanted to try crafting my own magic items, so I to take Leadership for all the reasons I listed above. I decided to create the cohort and found an artisan shop to assist in magic item creation, not as a power move, but because it made an interesting story, and gave me something creative to do with the low level followers that I will be attracting as I gain levels. Like most of the decisions I made in creating this character, it was a story decision, not a power decision. That was the point I was trying to make, that's all.