Raise Dead Thread!
My own Leadership experience is this: my tabletop game right now is playing an ultra-slow Rise of the Runelords, and it's so slow we switched over to the Anniversary edition mid-way through Hook Mountain Massacre. We're now in Fortress of the Stone Giants.
I'm not sure if you have played RotRL Adventure Path before, but it is notorious for being both money-shy and railroad-heavy with no stops along the way. The Anniversary edition helps a little, but my team of adventurers is looking at Fortress of the Stone Giants taking weeks and weeks with no large city like Magimar to turn all of their stuff into gold and back.
I was playing with them as a Sorcerer (Celestial bloodline, Conjurer) until they needed me to GM because the old GM is getting his Master's degree. So I "retired" my PC, since at the table we all know a GMPC is Castle Wolfenstein on God Mode. Being a roleplayer and not allowing my Sorcerer to automatically level with the main adventuring group, he has languished at Level 6 back at Sandpoint and Thistletop, which the Fighter/leader has turned into our adventurers' base of operations. Not that they have visited much...
So the party is arcane-light now. Enter the Leadership feat. When the party finally made it back to Sandpoint for the opening of Fortress of the Stone Giants, I was able to bring my Sorcerer out of storage and dust him off. He acquired the Leadership feat at Level 7 during the opening of Fortress of the Stone Giants (no spoilers), and acquired a crafting Wizard (Conjurer). I roleplayed that a Level 5 Wizard from the local major city of Magimar had no Conjuring master to study from, so he was desperate enough to go to Sandpoint because he had heard of a Conjuring Sorcerer there. (Korsova having Conjurers specializing in demon summoning only, and the Wizard being Good like my Sorcerer.)
My Cohort Wizard is a full PC. I rolled up his 4D6 stats in front of the others at the table, I assigned every feat, trait (Hedge Wizard, APG), skill (lots of Crafts and Knowledge), and items (mostly scrolls). My Wizard is also taking Cooperative Crafting, and my GMPC and Cohort GMPC will be the crafting team back at Thistletop for the main party 7 days/week, 365 days/year. They don't adventure with the main party. They are there as a fence for all of the main party's stuff and to craft stuff for the main party. Once my now-Level 8 Sorcerer gets Teleport and my now-Level 6 Wizard gets Sending and Scrying, "popping in" on the characters to take their stuff back to the big city to sell, or putting a new quirk on their existing item(s), will be easy.
With both of them having similar crafting skills (Weaponsmith, Armorer, Goldsmith, Jeweler) and feats, along with Cooperative Crafting, they can do twice the work in half the time and sell the stuff at a local major city (Magimar). Why, just doing 100 masterwork arrows/bolts and using Lesser Planar Binding to get a Lantern Archon casting Continual Flame on the arrow/bolts nets about 2,616 gp a day!
One of the other players is kind enough to put my GMPC and Cohort GMPC through their own adventures on "off weekends" at the gaming table, with another player bringing two PCs he has had for years in his PC-a-dex. I get to level my characters while the main party is assaulting the Fortress of the Stone Giants in Rise of the Runelords, the other player gets to advance some old players, and we're all happy. I'm not crafting during the one-shot side adventure because there's no downtime (yet). I play my Cohort Wizard as someone following along in the Sorcerer's footsteps, taking similar Conjuration spells, and I have learned more about (Summon) Mount vs. Phantom Steed and the limitations on summoning than I ever did with the Sorcerer. My Cohort is also about comfort, and timesaving, more than the Sorcerer. (Never, ever, roll up a Wizard without the Ant Haul (APG Sor/Wiz1) spell. I learned this after the Wizard is in danger of needing a back brace, the pack rat.)
So two people, each playing two characters, one with Leadership, one without but running two PCs, and one GM. And no complaints at the table. The GM has me keep track of the XPs and levels of my Cohort.
- Is Leadership being abused? Not according to the other GM, because, and I quote, "You're a roleplayer."
- Is the Cohort a craftbot? Yes, yes he is.
- Is the Cohort controlled by the player and not the GM? Totally.
- Is the Cohort breaking the game? Not yet, and I'm going to make sure that he doesn't. My GMPC and Cohort GMPC are going to not be in the main adventuring party, but be available for "emergencies" and crafting/selling/buying. In the side quest(s) my PC is the party "face" due to his high Charisma and Leadership feat.
So ROLEPLAYING and cooperation/communication among all parties concerned is key.
Now then, I do have some questions about Leadership:
- due to the side quest, I find myself far, far away from Magimar, Sandpoint, and Thistletop. The adventure promises land & title if successful. Can I take a follower and leave them behind to till the land and collect the taxes, or do I need another cohort? Can I take a 2nd cohort and leave him/her behind? What if I pay the follower or cohort (Average, or 10 gp/month)? I'm planning on visiting 1/day month with Teleport.
- I'm not seeing a lot of use for followers in general. I guess I could hire some people from the local village of Sandpoint to be guards at the outpost of Thistletop, in order to keep wandering monsters away. But what if I don't want/need the mandatory followers on the Leadership chart?
I think the biggest problem with Leadership is the same as with any other OP Feat/Mechanic etc. - players don't read it correctly, DM neither and both interpret it wrong.
Original Text:
Benefits: This feat enables you to attract a loyal cohort and a number of devoted subordinates who assist you. A cohort is generally an NPC with class levels, while followers are typically lower level NPCs. See Table: Leadership for what level of cohort and how many followers you can recruit.
"This feat enables you to attract a loyal cohort and a number of devoted subordinates who assist you."
First: Attract, this means they want to follow you because they want, because you are some sort of paragon for them. This means also, if you failed to achiev this paragon, they will leave you (and maybe others will follow you).
"A cohort is generally an NPC" - NPC are NON-player cahracters, so they will be created and handled by the DM.
For me Leadership means this:
Some NPC heared from your achievments/adventures and want to follow you out of free will.
This NPC will be created by the DM and he will decide what he is willing to do for the character.
OF COURSE the DM should talk to the player when he is creating the cohort and at best, create them together with the player.
This NPCs should have a agenda, background etc. Like a normal NPC.
During the game the DM handel the NPCs, talk for him etc. in combat the DM can allow the player to play the NPC (like an Eidolon, Companion etc.), but can always alter the NPCs action if he think this would be against the NPCs character.
For myself I really like this feat, but it has to fit to the character and DM and player have to work together to get it right (and to get the most out of it (not stat wise!)).
It's just to have a little control over it otherwise it can end in thinks like the "365days magic item creator".
Cohorts are NPC and should be handled as such, not as magic-item-building-robots
Little note about the OP: He mentions in the ancient post the potential of building a pirate crew. I did that with a leadership character a while back, it was a fun build to make.
While I agree there is significant potential for abuse, if the GM takes away all contributions from the player, its no longer a feat, it's a chain for the GM to jerk the player around with. Yes, the GM should definitely be there during design, but above all, if you dislike it, don't use it. Just dont. You can give NPC companions of your choice any time (and most DMs I know do this at some time or another). So either forbid it or let the player make the choices; otherwise, you're just telling making a player waste a feat.
Still, the situation described by the thread necromancer seems a clever (and decent) way to go abuse sort-of abuse. He is already a crafter anyway, so it aint too bad.
Sorry for being snippy, but too many GMs here seem to both HATE the intent of leadership (allowing you to create a cool crew), while not being ready to ban it. It's perplexing.
And for all of those who say "complete GM design is RAW/RAI", I refer to a Sean K Reaynolds post:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lfwq?Leadership-Who-chooses#21
|
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).
If your cohort did fall in love with a poodle, you may be asked to post bail to get them out the slammer.
The next game that I run, players will be limited to a single combat assist character, which includes:
Animal Companions
Improved Familiars
Bonded Mounts
Cohorts
This is purely to keep combat moving smoothly/quickly as possible. If you want Leadership and already have one of the other types of combat assist characters, take your cohort as a stay-at-home manager type.
I'm fine with players designing their cohorts. They'll be subject to GM approval as any PC build would be anyways. Players will generally run the cohort in combat unless they try to make the cohort do something suicidal or stupid (depending on cohort INT and WIS). Cohorts will expect a share of the loot (if not a full share, then a Level/PC Level share), because 2 levels behind isn't that much less powerful.
This is how I typically handle leadership.
1. Player tells me they wish to take leadership beforehand. This way I can adjust as necessary.
2. I design the original cohort based on past payer experiences and what makes sense for them to attract. A famous paladin might attract a bard wanting to chronicle his deeds, a knight a squire, a wizard an apprentice, that kind of thing. If the player is interested in a character specifically I make note of it and see if the npc himself needs adjustment before tossing him to the player.
3. I design based on heroic npc elite array and try to make someone useful who doesn't step on anyone's toes.
4. Decisions based on mechanics after creation (such as incombat actions, leveling etc. are up to the player. Out of combat things are on me. He is an npc afterall not a magically compelled class feature. He can be lost and another cohort gained of course.
5. I adjust the treasure I hand out to include an npc share. I also make it clear to the group that I'm doing this to ensure that the players cohort can stay on par with npc's of his level. They're not animal companions or ediolons they don't often if ever get the same benfits.
6. If the rest of the group doesn't give the npc his proper share he may eventually leave out of frustration feeling that he is going under equipped into situations that can get him very dead.
7. If this method is exploited to break WBL too far, such as multiple players taking leadership and refusing to cut npc's their share. Than I ban the feat entirely.
This method has worked out quite well for me. So well that I've had ot limti groups to one character with leadership, not so much because it's op (it's really not if you keep a hand on the reins)but because that much crap on the table slows things down too much.
This is how I typically handle leadership.
1. Player tells me they wish to take leadership beforehand. This way I can adjust as necessary.
I agree completely as this feat will need work done in advance.
2. I design the original cohort based on past payer experiences and what makes sense for them to attract. A famous paladin might attract a bard wanting to chronicle his deeds, a knight a squire, a wizard an apprentice, that kind of thing. If the player is interested in a character specifically I make note of it and see if the npc himself needs adjustment before tossing him to the player.
This means you base this cohort on your experience and not the player while it is still a player feat. If you trust your players that badly maybe you shouldn't allow the feat at all.
I would allow the player to create a cohort with final confirmation from me at least and maybe adjustment if I feel it will be unbalanced.3. I design based on heroic npc elite array and try to make someone useful who doesn't step on anyone's toes.
I agree on the design method but would threaten the player a bit with redesigning the cohort using NPC rules if he/she tries to create a munchkin.
4. Decisions based on mechanics after creation (such as incombat actions, leveling etc. are up to the player. Out of combat things are on me. He is an npc afterall not a magically compelled class feature. He can be lost and another cohort gained of course.
I would generally let the player manage the cohort, except for sharing in the treasure, as that risks being a double agenda for the player. And actually gaining a share of treasure would depend on sharing the same risk as the other players, without doing suicide runs. I wouldn't allow an exchange of inventory of the player with his/her cohort and would roleplay that with the player.
5. I adjust the treasure I hand out to include an npc share. I also make it clear to the group that I'm doing this to ensure that the players cohort can stay on par with npc's of his level. They're not animal companions or ediolons they don't often if ever get the same benfits.
I agree
6. If the rest of the group doesn't give the npc his proper share he may eventually leave out of frustration feeling that he is going under equipped into situations that can get him very dead.
I agree unless the cohort does not take some risk as the players are exposed to.
7. If this method is exploited to break WBL too far, such as multiple players taking leadership and refusing to cut npc's their share. Than I ban the feat entirely.
I agree
This method has worked out quite well for me. So well that I've had ot limti groups to one character with leadership, not so much because it's op (it's really not if you keep a hand on the reins)but because that much crap on the table slows things down too much.
This sounds a bit like you didn't want the feat at all. How would you decide to allow one player over the other player that wants this????
I want to add that I really respect the work you put into this, even though I do not agree to everything
One thing I've learned is some of ya'll either are/or have incredibly pervasive GMs. This much control astonishes me.
Appareantly there are a lot of players out there who think this game is a race towards gaining the most xp/treasure/lackeys you can possibly get your hands on, by any means neccasary (the goal justifying any means).
I dont know if I could be in a game like that, currently our rules are 20 point buy, no summoners, unless you can possibly make a melee one that is fun and interesting, and only main books. And thats it, no DM approval, we get to make the cohorts following the same rules we used for pc creation..its a blast
That is how it should be.
It depends on the people you are playing with. If one tried to take obvious unrealistic advantage of a cohort (like tailormaking it to have exactly what the character is missing for item creation and only using it for item creation then I would not allow leadership)I play with my friends who are all around 40/45 and we don't like to munchkin our way through a campaign and have fun doing it. We work with communal treasure we will draw on individually with confirmition from the group. We will make cohorts that are realistic characters even though they are NPC's and try playing them as seperate from our own characters. Usually we will announce an action before executing it so the group and the GM can react to this action being reasonable.
no DM approval, we get to make the cohorts following the same rules we used for pc creation..its a blastThat is how it should be.
At least I've got one person in the same ballpark as me.
Get Leadership and make your cohort as you wish, then roleplay the relationship and any bonuses or detractions.
This means you base this cohort on your experience and not the player while it is still a player feat. If you trust your players that badly maybe you shouldn't allow the feat at all.
I would allow the player to create a cohort with final confirmation from me at least and maybe adjustment if I feel it will be unbalanced.
Trust one way or another is not the question. It's verisimilitude. Again this is not a magically compelled or controlled class feature. This is an NPC in the world that has taken an interest in going along with the pc on their adventures. The player's actual impact on the world is on my shoulders. And at the very least I like to think I'm fair on this.
The question isn't whether or not I trust the player. The question is whether or not the player trusts me. If they opt out of leadership that's great for me. Less work and hassle. If they do, that's great for me too since I can give them a greater sense of immersion through this cohort that a class feature would otherwise not accomplish.
When I limit it to one or two players it's an acknowledgement that combat gets bogged down by too many crap on the palyers field. When a four person party turns into a 12 or 16 person party before initiative is even rolled I take that as a bad sign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait you guys approve your pc's builds beforehand? what kind of stuff does that look for?
Truthfully, mostly to prevent players from falling into 'trap' options for their characters, or making an incorrect/illegal build (I check allocation of attribute and skill points especially, as one Jovian Chronicles PBEM I ran had 12 characters and not one of them got their math right).
Occasionally, people use options not supported by the 'permitted' source material (varies by campaign). No, characters may not take asian-themed armor in a non-asian themed setting, I don't care if you own Ultimate Combat...;D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait you guys approve your pc's builds beforehand? what kind of stuff does that look for?
Before they start playing them? Yes, absolutely.
First off, there are restrictions on what can be played where in the world in any given level and time period. That's more of a discussion before they make it though.
After being made, I look them over, point out any mistakes I can find, any issues (hey, this would be better for you, or this is a really bad synergy, or these two don't work together and here is why).
Heck, I have a couple of players who just tell me what they want to play and ask me to make their character for them. They're more interested in the concept than the mechanics.
wait you guys approve your pc's builds beforehand? what kind of stuff does that look for?Before they start playing them? Yes, absolutely.
First off, there are restrictions on what can be played where in the world in any given level and time period. That's more of a discussion before they make it though.
After being made, I look them over, point out any mistakes I can find, any issues (hey, this would be better for you, or this is a really bad synergy, or these two don't work together and here is why).
Heck, I have a couple of players who just tell me what they want to play and ask me to make their character for them. They're more interested in the concept than the mechanics.
That's great. You obviously monitor closely if someone wants the feat and will help them if neccasary.
I will always make my character on PCGen so I will not make too many mistakes in math. It will also make my characters easyer to propose as i can send em through the mail both as a pcgen file as well as a pdf file
|
I admit, I've only seen issues with leadership when
1.) Multiple PCs try to take it
2.) They want to bring everybody along.
Generally, the approach I take is that the DM makes the character, but the player makes the suggestion of what he's looking for (kind of like putting out a karmic job announcement.)
Recently I had a paladin player with leadership who wanted an item crafter type with skills of her own to keep the folks on his airship motivated. He got a half-silver dragon transmuter with crafting feats. She's got a sort of build, it sort of works in combat, and she can manage people and also deal with threats to the ship and motivate people. Is it how he would have built her? Nope. Does he complain? Nope.
I also admit that I don't let players run their own cohorts in combat, its something I picked up from 2e days. 'Of course he'll sacrifice his very life for me...' Also, having a single Player occupying multiple spaces on the init chart is irritating for everyone (other PCs more so then the DM ironically).
Coupled with the DM making them, the DM generally adjudicating their personalities results in them being treated more as individuals and less as scroll-caddies or expendable meat shields. I actually attribute a negative modifier of up to -4 on people's leadership if the character behaves like a member of the Knights of the Dinner Table towards them.
The DM shouldn't screw over his players. If he wants magical back up, make a magical back up character. Don't make him ineffective, but don't let the player squeeze every item he ever dreamed of getting on him, or every spell he always wanted to scribe.
I admit I usually build NPCs just a little less effective then PCs would be built. Like the half-dragon girl above, she'd probably be better as a kensai magus or something (with the claw attacks, even with the anemic breath weapon), but she's a wizard, a strangely melee focused one.
If anybody is looking for rules on followers and what to do with them, you'd better look at Fire mountain games AP: Way of the Wicked.
in Call forth Darkness you have rules for followers and what to do with your minions. Obviously it's evil based but it can be used for good organisations.
Plus the AP is probably one of(if not) the best I've ever seen/played.
Check it out.
Now i found this thread very interesting. As my players are about to reach lvl 7 and will take leadership.
All i've realised is that it all comes to discussion between GM and players.
I realize I'm chiming in years after the fact, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion about Leadership...
We all seem to agree that Cohorts are made with an elite array, and NPC gear for level.
Followers, I guess, use the standard array, and NPC gear... but shouldn't be combatants.
that is what I am taking away from this.
I have always used Leadership as a DM and as a player, I have seen it abused, I have abused it.
It CAN lead to problems, but ultimately, it is up to the DM and the player to sit down and talk about it. The biggest problem I have with it these days is the sheer number of people in the group. With an animal companion, two cohorts and numerous undead, travel is complicated (there are more NPCs than there are PCs in the party!).
I am tempted to nerf the feat (or more accurately, put limitations on a loosely defined feat)-I think even if only NPC classes were available, I would still take it. I would NOT, however, take it unless I got to design the cohort. I would consult with the DM, but under no circumstances would I allow him full control of the design, that seems silly.