I haven't run into this yet, but I would like some clarification. I'm sure 1 or 2 of my players are going to take leadership when they hit level 7, and they can either make a cohort with a 15 point buy, or convince an NPC to be their cohort because some of my NPCs have better stats.
My question is who should I have level up the cohort?
|
Per the strictest reading of the rules, the GM as a cohort is an NPC that follows you and is essentially your assistant. The player really doesn't get a whole lot of choice when it comes to what their cohort can do.
But alot of GM's just hand the sheet over to the player as that is less complicated than having another aspect to manage as a GM. And then it's like you're playing 2 characters at once and that is why the feat ends up in the too over powered to consider letting a player have mindset.
my 2 cents, hope it helps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly disagree, James. The player took the feat and the cohort is a part of his character, much in the same way a familiar or animal companion is a class feature of a character
The GM wouldn't build your animal companion for you or decide what feats or skills your animal companion takes, nor should he decide how your cohort levels up for you.
And, judging from the links Cheapy posted above, it would seem Jason and Sean would agree.
I have always handled this by allowing the character to design (and level up) his or her cohort. Just like a PC, I have final say over what a cohort can and can't take\do, but since the player burned a feat for it, I allow quite a bit of leeway on it. I also allow the player to handle the cohort in general play.
I get the devs say the player should build the cohort. I disagree, since running a second PC a level behind your original (likely for people who actually take it) seems more than a little broken. Beats the hell out of an animal companion class feature, for one thing.
We currently have a game with five active PCs and two of us have Leadership. We both control our cohorts. The GM balances the encounters based on the total APL including cohorts.
The feat is broken - if you don't adjust your encounters to account for the extra power the cohorts bring to the table. It's perfectly fine if you take that into account beforehand, even if you allow the player to create and control the cohort.
There is a chapter in Ultimate Campaign devoted to this subject and it falls along the lines of what Tormand, James, and Xantherus stated.
This is one of the reasons I'm skeptical of Leadership. Like my friend playing a wizard said:
I could take spend my 9th level feat to grab Craft Wondrous Items, or I could spend my 9th level feat to take Leadership and have my brand spanking new level 8 wizard minion/cohort take:
1. Scribe Scroll
1. Skill Focus: Spellcraft
3. Brew Potion
5. Craft Magic Arms And Armor
5. Craft Wondrous Items
7. Craft Wand
I do allow Leadership in my games, but it has to make sense. The character that becomes the cohort is one that has already been involved in the campaign one way or the other, and he/she has his/her own motivations and agendas - she/he's not an automaton under the control of the GM.
For instance I'd say that Jakardros Sovark from Rise of the Runelords is a good example of a potential cohort.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimate Campaign, page 142:
Advancement choices for a cohort include feats, skills, ability score increases, and class levels. A cohort is generally considered a player-controlled companion, and therefore you get to decide how the cohort advances. The GM might step in if you make choices that are inappropriate for the cohort, use the cohort as a mechanism for pushing the boundaries of the game rules, or treat the cohort unfairly.
Pretty cut and dry for the question as to who levels up the cohorts (aka: the topic of this thread).
Since some people seem to be mistaking this thread with a thread on who controls the cohort, UC also goes to great pains to make it clear that the cohort is not some automaton that does whatever the player wants, but has a Helpful (as per the diplomacy rules) disposition towards their 'leader' / player.
This is one of the reasons I'm skeptical of Leadership. Like my friend playing a wizard said:
I could take spend my 9th level feat to grab Craft Wondrous Items, or I could spend my 9th level feat to take Leadership and have my brand spanking new level 8 wizard minion/cohort take:
1. Scribe Scroll
1. Skill Focus: Spellcraft
3. Brew Potion
5. Craft Magic Arms And Armor
5. Craft Wondrous Items
7. Craft WandI do allow Leadership in my games, but it has to make sense. The character that becomes the cohort is one that has already been involved in the campaign one way or the other, and he/she has his/her own motivations and agendas - she/he's not an automaton under the control of the GM.
For instance I'd say that Jakardros Sovark from Rise of the Runelords is a good example of a potential cohort.
I let my players know cohorts are adventurers, they do not stay home and craft for their "master"; if they wanted to be a crafter, they wouldn't be a cohort. I don't mind a cohort having one craft item feat, but that's it (unless their class gives them one for free). In addition, cohorts themselves cannot have Leadership in my game. if they were leaders themselves, they wouldn't be a cohort in the first place. As GM, I allow my players to make thier cohorts, and level them, but I review them and overrule if things don't make sense.
@Swashbucklersdc: I would probably allow a player to have a "stay at home" craft minion using Leadership - but I would apply anything he made to the UCamp suggested WBL limit and include it in the leader's 125% WBL.
From a justification standpoint: Even a crafter cohort needs to have a life of his own; he crafts more than your party will ever see, but he sells it for his own livelihood, and you're still capped at 125%. At worst it would help you get to the WBL cap more quickly (since the player could have two projects going at once effectively - something you can't do normally), but that's really about it.
The chapter in Ultimate Campaign also says something about not allowing wizard's cohort to take a bunch of crafting feats and do nothing but make magic items for the PC.
Would somebody be able to post that language for us.
Sure! I'm going to cut out the parts around it, because I don't want to type everything.
Examples of inappropriate advancement choices are ... [snip] a spellcaster cohort takingnothing but item creation feats (so you get access to plenty of cheap magic items at the cost of just one feat), ... [snip]
The chapter in Ultimate Campaign also says something about not allowing wizard's cohort to take a bunch of crafting feats and do nothing but make magic items for the PC.
Would somebody be able to post that language for us.
Ultimate Campaign; pages 142, 143
If you exploit your cohort, you'll quickly find your Leadership score shrinking away. Although this doesn't change the cohort's level, the cohort can't gain levels until your Leadership score allows for a level increase, so if you're a poor leader, you must wait longer for your cohort to level up. In extreme cases, the cohort might abandon you, and you'll have to recruit a new cohort.
Examples of inappropriate advancement choices are a good-aligned companion selecting morally questionable feats, a clumsy cohort suddenly putting many ranks in Disable Device (so he can take all the risks in searching for traps instead you), a spellcaster cohort taking nothing but item creation feats (so you get access to plenty of cheat magic items at the cost of just one feat, Leadership), a fighter cohort taking a level in wizard when he had no previous interest in magic, or you not interacting with your cleric cohort other than to gain defensive spells from a different class or a flanking bonus.
The use of "You" instead of "Your character" is a bit annoying :P
|
In general, I as the DM handle all of the cohort stuff. I don't even let the players see the cohort's sheet.
That being said, I did ask them 'what are you looking for,' as they /are/ trying to select an appropriate employee.
Its like you're looking for say...an accountant, the NPC who shows up should be good at accounting. Your HR isn't going to hire Ozwald the Poodle Juggler for accounts just because the DM says so.
When I've seen PC built cohorts, they tend to represent things that have no rational purpose for existing outside of supporting the PC. This includes sorcerors who apparently had nothing but buffspells, and the disturbing attempts I've seen at Low-Wis, Low-Int, Ridiculously High Charisma arm-candy cohorts.
The paladin in my current game asked for a 'wizard type to manage things and make stuff' cohort and ended up with a half-silver dragon transmuter type with a lot of crafting feats. He has no idea what her sheet is, the only things he knowsi s her level, her alignment (LG like his), and so vague ideas of her spells. She manages things and crafts stuff, so the requirement is met, the player is happy, and its better then seeing an NPC with cherry picked feats, spells and the like.
The trick with cohorts though is that some parties naturally collect supporting NPCs and the like based on capabilities and the way the story goes.
If i allowed the leadership feat i would allow the player to level up the cohort.
Maybe Leadership is balanced with other feats for new groups, but I don't really see that with gamers that approach intermediate levels of experience. It's nice to see some extra guidelines on it, but I'm probably still keeping it on my "banned until told otherwise" list, since there are so many ways it can be abused. Getting access to a new spell known ... getting a +2 to this or +4 to that ... maybe just one item creation feat ... Leadership can replicate the benefits of a lot of other feats and then do far more.
Still, I'm not without mercy. I've had a player that wanted to run a mounted character, but had been pigeonholed into healbot by the group. I let him use Leadership to get something like a cavalier mount so he wasn't stuck with 15 hp horses. He was still quite powerful, but he wasn't really the most difficult character in the group.
|
|
The feat is balanced by the fact the cohort is lower level, needs to be supported and is generally best suited for rear-guard stuff.
In the old days it was 'torch bearers,' these days PCs are more like venture-capitalists and tend to have their cohorts stick around working on stuff while they adventure.
I admit though I do tell players who take leadership that I will take the CRB to their cabasa if they try to bring all of their followers along all the time and then try to demand they each get their own init count.
The followers more so then the cohort tend to be the problem issue with the feat. High enough level and you can basically populate a small town with them. I remember one enterprising player (thankfully not in my game) back in the 3e days who wanted to get 50-50 follower split, then wanted to arrange Moon style weddings so they would start cranking out children who he could take and train since 'my followers would gladly surrender all for me.'
I don't know how that got resolved (not my game) but yeesh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how having a crafting cohort is anything, but a hindrance.
Yeah, um, it doesn't usually work out that way in a lot of groups (those few that actually allow crafting cohorts).
Take a belt of physical might +4 for example. The party wizard decides to craft one for the barbarian, so the party takes some down time as he crafts one over a month long period. They resume their adventures with the new belt afterwards.
VS
The party barbarian's shamanistic druid cohort stays at home and crafts said belt over a one month period while the adventurers go out and save the world. The now 20th-level party returns home from their epic quests to pick up the belt THAT THEY DIDN'T GET TO USE THE ENTIRE TIME THEY ADVENTURED.
VS
The party wizard, barbarian, and others all adventure together for one month, cake-walking most encounters due to their new support party member: the bard cohort.
I fail to see how the stay-at-home-crafting-cohort (or SAHCC, pronounced "sack") is functionally better in the vast majority of games.
Granted, Kingmaker is the only 'slow' game I've played. The rest were pretty fast-spaced. In CotC we saved the world in a span of several months.
|
|
Ultimate Campaign, page 142:
Advancement choices for a cohort include feats, skills, ability score increases, and class levels. A cohort is generally considered a player-controlled companion, and therefore you get to decide how the cohort advances. The GM might step in if you make choices that are inappropriate for the cohort, use the cohort as a mechanism for pushing the boundaries of the game rules, or treat the cohort unfairly.Pretty cut and dry for the question as to who levels up the cohorts (aka: the topic of this thread).
Since some people seem to be mistaking this thread with a thread on who controls the cohort, UC also goes to great pains to make it clear that the cohort is not some automaton that does whatever the player wants, but has a Helpful (as per the diplomacy rules) disposition towards their 'leader' / player.
Cheapy nailed it. If you feel like you have to control a player that much, you might want to reconsider either being a GM or being a GM for that player.
|
|
RD, there is a third scenario:
The party barbarian's shamanistic druid cohort stays at home and crafts said belt over a one month period, so the party takes some down time. They resume their adventures with the new belt AND the party wizard is more powerful than his crafting counterpart in your first scenario because he took non-crafting feats.
Cohort is an NPC so the GM does every choosing for him. Is not a familiar or a companion that depends on his master level for abilities and such.
RD, there is a third scenario:
The party barbarian's shamanistic druid cohort stays at home and crafts said belt over a one month period, so the party takes some down time. They resume their adventures with the new belt AND the party wizard is more powerful than his crafting counterpart in your first scenario because he took non-crafting feats.
Except that's not why a lot of people do it. It's always "to save on feats" or "to be able to adventure and not wait."
In the vast majority of games, the latter doesn't really apply.
Since leadership is not PFS legal, this falls under GM fiat. I will swing my freedom banner that reads "Rule 0" and not even SKR can tell me otherwise! Muhahahahaha!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ho ho, I am a GM who sometimes lets players stat up NON-cohort NPCs...
Where's your logic now!?
But seriously, it should go however the GM wants it to. I don't see a problem with letting the player do it, unless of course there is a problem with the player doing it.
|
|
FWIW, I handle it as follows;
- player chooses the race & npc class (warrior, adept, etc)
- dm builds & advances the character, pc may make requests
- dm roleplays cohort
- player controls during combat, but gm may veto suicidal actions
You only allow npc classes (warrior, adept, etc) for Leadership cohorts? Interesting ...
Player. 100%.
Of course, the DM provides guidelines, and a reasonable guideline might be “no crafting feats”.
|
|
I truthfully admit that I usually have what a PC likes to show up by kismet, but in the old days I used to enjoy having players with leadership have to go through interviews.
It made for interesting RP. But admittedly, it also resulted in a player ending up with a decidedly more scrupulous follower then he wanted because the paladin was there.
I don't see a problem with the crafting feats as in general, you shouldn't be giving players months and months and months of downtime, thats time that a story isn't happening.
I don't see how having a crafting cohort is anything, but a hindrance.
Yeah, um, it doesn't usually work out that way in a lot of groups (those few that actually allow crafting cohorts).
Take a belt of physical might +4 for example. The party wizard decides to craft one for the barbarian, so the party takes some down time as he crafts one over a month long period. They resume their adventures with the new belt afterwards.
VS
The party barbarian's shamanistic druid cohort stays at home and crafts said belt over a one month period while the adventurers go out and save the world. The now 20th-level party returns home from their epic quests to pick up the belt THAT THEY DIDN'T GET TO USE THE ENTIRE TIME THEY ADVENTURED.
VS
The party wizard, barbarian, and others all adventure together for one month, cake-walking most encounters due to their new support party member: the bard cohort.
I fail to see how the stay-at-home-crafting-cohort (or SAHCC, pronounced "sack") is functionally better in the vast majority of games.
Your logic is flawed - why can't the party wait around for a month while the cohort crafts it instead of the wizard? The net result is the same (1 month passes, barbarian gets belt for 50% of cost), while the wizard still has access to a level-scaling number crafting feats for the cost of 1 feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your logic is flawed - why can't the party wait around for a month while the cohort crafts it instead of the wizard?
Because the GM has an adventure tapping its foot that won't wait a month for the PCs to goof off and craft items.
GM: The dragon has kidnapped the princess!
PCs: Hold on, Bob's cohort needs three more weeks to finish crafting some items.
GM: ...
PCs: Okay, we go after that dragon!
GM: You find some princess bones. Nice job.
Sean: If one of the PCs could craft items, it would be a pretty poor GM that would always have time-limit adventures and never allow that PC time to craft. The same should apply to cohort crafters.
(Of course the opposite would also be bad; the GM shouldn't give the party infinite amounts of time just because they can craft.)
As far as the crafting issue, the whole thing kind falls under what kind of game you have. Some games are very time sensitive, some aren't.
As far as Leadership when I run a game I allow the players to level the cohort. But, they don't get to build the cohort from the ground up. In Serpent Skull they fell in love with the arrogant little gnome from the island, so they took him along as a pocket bard. I went off his last set of stats, leveled them a touch, and from then on they controlled him. It worked well, since none them could roll to save their lives.
Besides, I didn't feel like messing with one more npc in every battle, social interaction, and etc..
Your logic is flawed - why can't the party wait around for a month while the cohort crafts it instead of the wizard?Because the GM has an adventure tapping its foot that won't wait a month for the PCs to goof off and craft items.
GM: The dragon has kidnapped the princess!
PCs: Hold on, Bob's cohort needs three more weeks to finish crafting some items.
GM: ...
PCs: Okay, we go after that dragon!
GM: You find some princess bones. Nice job.
Then the player with the cohort still has the option of having the cohort craft the item/do research on their opponent/run his assorted pastry business chains while he's off saving the world, while the player who took the crafting feat instead is hosed since he now has a feat that he can't actually use since the GM is riding his ass and not allowing him any downtime.
I guess depends on the GM. I level them myself why? because even though cohorts are loyal to the player they arent puppets, so they can pretty much takes decisions by themselves. Makes no sense to me a Player tell the Cohort...."Hey you will become Paladin next level".
The levels should be more tide to the npc background and likes, the npcs have a life of its own ^^;
Other option could be taking levels, feats etc on things that the party maybe need. Also, Players can suggest me ideas, if I like them... sure why not?
Sean: If one of the PCs could craft items, it would be a pretty poor GM that would always have time-limit adventures and never allow that PC time to craft. The same should apply to cohort crafters.
Oh, I agree, the GM should allow a crafting PC some time for crafting, otherwise the character has wasted a feat.
But "allow some time for crafting" doesn't mean "the campaign world is on hold for as long as the PCs want to craft."
Then the player with the cohort still has the option of having the cohort craft the item/do research on their opponent/run his assorted pastry business chains while he's off saving the world,
Except that's exactly the sort of behavior that Ultimate Campaign classifies as "exploiting your cohort."
Sean: If one of the PCs could craft items, it would be a pretty poor GM that would always have time-limit adventures and never allow that PC time to craft. The same should apply to cohort crafters.Oh, I agree, the GM should allow a crafting PC some time for crafting, otherwise the character has wasted a feat.
But "allow some time for crafting" doesn't mean "the campaign world is on hold for as long as the PCs want to craft."
Then the player with the cohort still has the option of having the cohort craft the item/do research on their opponent/run his assorted pastry business chains while he's off saving the world,Except that's exactly the sort of behavior that Ultimate Campaign classifies as "exploiting your cohort."
I agree, that was my point all along - that's why I mentioned I houseruled some limitations on Leadership some time before UCamp came out. RavingDork was asking why people consider crafting cohorts anything but a hindrance, and I outlined a few examples of why for the average wizard Leadership (assuming there are no artifical limitations put on the feat) is a better feat than a crafting feat. Since the Ultimate Campaign (and the notes on Leadership) is fairly new, most of us have been handling the possible ramifications of Leadership via houserules.