Leadership


Advice


How Leadership work in your games? The GM control the cohort or let the player control? Who make the cohort? The player can direct the cohorts class he want?


In our games, the cohort is almost a second PC, designed and under the control of the PC who takes the feat. The GM only steps in to curb obvious abuses.


Well its generally understood that its an npc. This basically means under the gm control. However gm have a lot t deal with. So I think in practice most games leave the cohort under the players control.

In our game tye player controlls the cohort unless the dm feels its an inappropriate action or there is something they feel the cohort would do.

The ultimate camaign book seems to support this model for cohorts

Liberty's Edge

What we do is allow the person to recruit from the pool of existing NPCs (leveling them up to match if necessary). If none of the NPCs are suitable we might roll some random race/class combinations or something, but it would take a lot of time to recruit if you're looking for something specific. Also, the PC has no control over what the cohort takes prior to joining them.

Once recruited, the player can choose how to level the cohort (within reason; things the NPC obviously wouldn't take would require checks, at minimum). They also get to control the cohort in combat, but it is understood that they are to behave as that NPC would behave while considering the PC a friend, not necessarily as would most benefit the PC, and definitely not suicidal.

Cohorts show up with some gear, but it is understood that the gear they come with becomes part of the PC's effective wealth and any further upgrades come out of the PC's pool.

TL;DR - The NPC mostly acts as themselves, but that work is delegated to the player for convenience's sake.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't use the feat at all. If a PC or the party wants a cohort they can go out and recuit by roleplaying. the cohort however is generally under my control although in certain situations, it may be farmed out for a player to run with the understanding that this is not a second PC.


I would build the cohort with the player, he would control the cohort in combat, representing 'their' practice and tactics. And I would control the cohort elsewhere or under the incluence of enchantments or fear conditions and the like.

Like LazarX, I also allow them to aquire/hire as they see fit through RP. But if that isn't the focus of character/player, then the feat alleviates that need.


As a DM I'd be stricter (sorry) for two reasons:

1. Even though the pc has spent a feat this smacks of them playing 2 characters and for the sake of the other pcs I'd restrict that pretty heavily (actually it's banned but for the point of the thread...)

I'd let them give me a rough idea of what type of character they wanted but I would design the npcs from the npc contacts and discuss them in broad terms to let the pc decide which one. The role the npc played in the game would be limited and key game elements like item crafting would not be allowed. You want a bodyguard fine, you want a magic item factory no.

2. Combat - a bit like a familiar with a huge Use Magic Device skill this feat gives extra actions if the pc controls the character. I accept I have a lot to do but letting the pc run the npc is too convenient and potentially undermines other pcs. So I'd run it, in a very reactive way that lets the pcs be the principle characters.

It's a broken feat - for a high charisma character easily the best one.


The cohort (not to mention the followers) are all technically NPCs, not PCs. Never forget that. So in everything they do, the GM ultimately has the final say.

I can easily imagine a swamped GM handing control over to the player, but this is definitely an issue of trust and responsibility for the player. If he abuses it, the GM can always veto anything. The player owns only the relationship; the GM owns the character.

Of course the GM shouldn't completely screw the player either. The cohort is loyal and reliable (as long as he's treated well at least), and the player's voice should also be heard.


the one time i brought a cohort on an adventure he got immediately creamed (finger of death or something ... lower level guy with NPC gear doesn't have good saves...) and i had to spend 10 grand having someone resurrect him. So, after that, i basically think the best use of a cohort is to keep him back at the base doing background stuff (research, item creation, etc) and maybe pre-buffing the party before they head out or healing them after, etc. Support.


Not allowed.


In a typical mid level fantasy vanilla campaign, I allow only one PC to have it. If they can't unanimously agree who that will be, then nobody will take it.

For something sandbox style like KingMaker, I think the PCs should all take it as they become rulers, landholders, liege lords, important persons, etc...

Those followers could be squires, your house guard, personal assistants, apprentices, far removed relations that are your wards, etc...

If you play with people that over-optimize and cheese to be mathematically superior than others at the expense of "role" playing, then there are probably more things you are banning other than the Leadership feat.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
In our games, the cohort is almost a second PC, designed and under the control of the PC who takes the feat. The GM only steps in to curb obvious abuses.

This is how we've played it as well.

In our last long-term campaign my paladin took Leadership. I created the cohort, a cleric, up to and including her backstory (it was an angel in the shape of a sword, so she became weapon and cohort all in one.)

Lantern Lodge

Ive only taken Leadership 3 times in my life and allowed it for my players 1ce. The 1 time i allowed it was back in 3.5 because the guy picking it up i trusted not to abuse it and he was playing a class he did not care for to suit the party's needs, rogue. He picked up a cleric to give some healing to himself primarily in combat.


I design the Cohort using player input (think of it as a 'job application' to find the right cohort) and then they run the cohort in combat and I run the cohort for role-play purposes.

I reserve the right to resume control of the cohort in combat.

- Gauss


Thank you all for the feedback : )


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never banned Leadership in any of my campaigns, and I always let my PC's create their own Cohorts, giving them full access to whatever books they want.
If you look at Chapter 3 in Ultimate Campaign, under "Companions" I've pretty much followed that kind of ruling for as long as I can remember.
I've only had to interject occasionally with Cohorts/Followers, say if someone tried to sacrifice a follower, or something similar, then leadership score drops, follower leaves, etc. After-all, they are still people, and won't blindly follow PC's, just because they say, "Well, if this demon wants a soul, I'll just volunteer Fred's, I'm sure he'll be fine with it." He won't be, lost follower, drop in Leadership score.
I do agree with a lot of people, that Leadership is a very powerful feat, but if done correctly, they are also a great tool for the GM, plot hooks, role-playing opportunities, bringing in new players letting them just run a cohort during play, etc. I've never seen a real reason NOT to allow Leadership, aside from making the table more complex. But my ongoing campaign has over 10 players in it right now, and each and every one of them has Leadership, and if you ask me, it just makes role-playing that much more flavorful.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't allow Leadership because you shouldn't need a feat for that. I generally don't allow followers because I usually have 6 players and the last thing I need is several of them deciding it would be great to have their own personal Cleric to follow them around.

I could be swayed for the right campaign, or if circumstances changed, but I see no reason for it currently.

-Skeld


I'll allow, but that depends on the kind of story i want to develop.

To me, it's a RP tool first and foremost.


AS DM/GM I plan for the cohort to fit the character. Then I level the npc give it set wealth, I let the player control it durning game time, But I level it up, and decided what it does during down time. Or even if it stays behind on a mission that may be to dangerous for it.

I recently had a CN Pirate/Cleric with good leanings take a cohort at level 7, I gave him an Young Imperial Sea dragon in disguse it self with shapshifting ablity. I gave it a magic ring that basicly made it under constant non-detection and let his shapeshifting last all day. I started it off as a disgused as halforc warrior with the greater darkvision trait. to help Disguse it self. This limited the number of feat the NPC would get that way it would never go over and be able to do something the creature could not actual do. I set the ablity scores at random lower numbers then the creatures actual scores.

I had to take the NPC out for two chapters. As it was leveling a bit to fast and one of the chapters had a very high risk of the dragon actual being accidently exposed earlyer then planed. It worked out well as those two chapters happend right after each other so there was no down time for the pc inbetween to go back and look for the cohort. It was basicly holding back the whole time until the character hit level 16 and then it showed him what it really was.

I did give the pc some extra cash for the cohorts missing time, and explain the cohort was taking the PCs followers and do a robin hood and pirateing from rich evil mercents and giving it to the poor but keeping some of the booty for them selfs. The PC end up useing all that money on the Cohort anyway.

The PC got a little up set because when he was a few xp short of level 16 the cohort had leveled again to level 10 one hit dice over the creature actual hit dice and I leveled it as a sorcers with dragon bloodline. I did it so the BAB did not go above the creatures actual BAB, saves end up the same skill points did not go over the creatures. I had give the creature the spell it actual knows as. Which where completely useless at that level. So the pc was a little up set and did not understand why I did it until he leveled on the next battle. and the dragon showed its true self to the pc. Story wise the dragon had been judgeing the pc to see if he was worthy of having him as a friend and cohort. Player says it is the best Cohort ever. He though I was nerfing the feat until the end because he did not see that comming.

Dark Archive

Leonardo Trancoso wrote:
How Leadership work in your games? The GM control the cohort or let the player control? Who make the cohort? The player can direct the cohorts class he want?

Here's how I handle it.

- NPC classes only (adept, warrior, etc)
- GM builds & levels it
- GM roleplays it when needed
- PC rolls for it during combat (GM has veto right)


Yeah, that seems pretty restrictive in my opinion, "I realize you're level 15, and tons of people know you, you even have dozens of followers, but you've been searching for a loyal fighter companion, none will join you, the best you can find is this level 13 expert baker."

Dark Archive

If you wanted a loyal fighter companion, why would you take an Expert instead of a Warrior? And for a 15th level character, your 13th level warrior would have BAB of 13/8/3, 7 feats and 21k in gold. Not too shabby, IMHO.

Also keep in mind, this isn't a class feature like an animal companion, it's a feat. For the cost of ONE feat? I think that's more than plenty. Not to mention your followers, too.


CrackedOzy, you are houseruling it, which is fine, but should at least be stated as such. Cohorts have class levels, not NPC levels. Followers have NPC levels.

- Gauss

Silver Crusade

I've always banned it out of hand; it seems like too much for a single feat.

You could get a healer, an item creator, a buffer, etc...it always seemed to me like the PCs should have to try to fill that role somehow, instead of getting it supercheap through the cost of a feat.

However, in my current campaign I've got a player who wants it to get a bodyguard for his squishy witch. I'm considering allowing it as long as the npc gets his cut of the treasure, or at least a salary reflecting his levels. (Even priests get a stipend.)


I think the main thing, in my campaigns anyway, letting the PC build their own cohort, figure out their background, and then running it all by me when it's finished, is normally plenty. Sure, I have final veto power, but very rarely have I ever had to say, "Nope, not this guy."
I feel the main thing about letting a PC build their own cohort, is they have a sense of attachment to their cohort, instead of just an extra sheet tucked behind their character that their GM handed them. In almost every sense, the cohort IS another PC as far as my games go. They have their own motivations, feelings, etc, and most of my players are perfectly willing to put the legwork in to flush out the background of their cohort, if they want to take the Leadership feat. I've actually had players nearly cry when their cohorts died, just because they were so attached to them, and not because they were attached to their stat-block, they were attached to the characters. I've also had entire parties go on rescue missions to save cohorts, just because even the whole party felt they were a member of the team, not just the cohorts leader.
To me, handing someone an NPC, and saying this is your new cohort, really takes away from the feat. It would be like me looking at the fighter and saying, "Well, I realize you've been using a longsword for several levels, and now want to take weapon focus and weapon specialization in the longsword, but I'm not personally a fan of the longsword, so I'm going to switch your feats to weapon focus and weapon specialization to rapier."
PC's should get the choice when it comes to their character, including backgrounds, feats, familiars, and cohorts. That's just my take on it.


Xorran, I thought that way once too except that too many times I had to reject a cohorts and the player's didnt understand since he was "legal".

That isn't to say I don't work with them on it. They give me initial input, I design it, they help refine it.

- Gauss


Well, I've been a GM for a pretty long time, very few times have I had to veto cohorts, normally if someone just decides to cohort out a wizard or cleric with nothing but item creation feats, or something like that.
And as far as pure munchkins go, if they view their cohorts as nothing more than a stat block, I make sure to keep track of that, while their leadership score shrinks, and they eventually lose their cohort. And I always remind players, if they are going to over munchkin something in my game, to remember, I'm familiar enough with the rules, that I can easily make NPC's that will out munchkin you and your little cohort if your only goal is to try to break my game ;)


Cohorts are for more Gygaxian campaigns where you need piles of bodies to help you ferry treasure, set off traps, and generally act as a personal labor pool and entourage.

More "modern" campaign styles tend to be much more "the story of 5 unlikely heroes" and their rise to fame and fortune. Adding a pile of extras dilutes the essential heroic nature of the story.

Silver Crusade

Leonardo Trancoso wrote:
How Leadership work in your games? The GM control the cohort or let the player control? Who make the cohort? The player can direct the cohorts class he want?

I have no problem with a character having a follower as long as

1. It does not go adventuring with said PC

2. It is not at home crafting items,scribing scrolls or any other pure cheesey ideas.


Tin Foil Yamakah wrote:

I have no problem with a character having a follower as long as

1. It does not go adventuring with said PC
2. It is not at home

Ummmm... I guess he needs to stay at the tavern, then? Or exremely overstay his welcome at Aunt Mathilda's house?

Is he allowed to check the mail occasionally?

Silver Crusade

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Tin Foil Yamakah wrote:

I have no problem with a character having a follower as long as

1. It does not go adventuring with said PC
2. It is not at home

Ummmm... I guess he needs to stay at the tavern, then? Or exremely overstay his welcome at Aunt Mathilda's house?

Is he allowed to check the mail occasionally?

1. Yes

2. If his aunt matilda will have him
3. As long as the cohort is not steaming open my mail, sure why not

Contributor

Its really up to your GM to decide how the cohort functions.

I've played in games where we (the players) have designed our own cohorts, played them in combat, and roleplayed them. I've also been in games where players have designed their own cohorts and taken their actions in combat, but the GM roleplayed them. I've been in games where the cohort was basically just a "free man" that you could always rely on, but the player had no control over any aspect of the character aside from the fact that said character was chosen to be a cohort.

Its all up to the game's style.

Personally, I like giving Leadership to my players as a bonus feat at 7th level, and I allow them to design their own cohorts. I only allow one cohort to accompany them per quest unless I design the encounters for multiple cohorts, and I also give the players access to special "GM cohorts" that are higher level, but I make all of their decisions.

Dark Archive

Gauss wrote:
Cohorts have class levels, not NPC levels. Followers have NPC levels.

Can you back that up with a reference?

The feat says "A cohort is generally an NPC with class levels," but never states NPC class or PC class. Both a Fighter and a Warrior have "class levels".

It does later say "A cohort can be of any race or class." but still fails to address the NPC/PC class difference.

And even then, if a cohort can be of PC class, it says "Followers are similar to cohorts, except they're generally low-level NPCs." So why can't followers be PC classes too?

Under Creating NPCs it says "Aside from the players, everyone else in the game world is a non-player character (NPC). These characters are designed and controlled by the GM to fill every role from noble king to simple baker. While some of these characters use player classes, most rely upon simple NPC classes," so I took that as my answer.

You say houserule, I say rule interpretation. Either way, I did say that it was how "I handled it" not how everyone should. In particular I feel it curbs what is otherwise (IMHO) an overpowered feat.


You just quoted it. Here is an example of the difference between 'class level' (also called a character class level) and 'non-player class level'

CRB p12 wrote:
A creature gains maximum hit points if its first Hit Die roll is for a character class level. Creatures whose first Hit Die comes from an NPC class or from his race roll their first Hit Die normally.
CRB p398 wrote:
Adding NPCs: Creatures whose Hit Dice are solely a factor of their class levels and not a feature of their race, such as all of the PC races detailed in Chapter 2, are factored into combats a little differently than normal monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept—see page 448) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. If this reduction would reduce a creature’s CR to below 1, its CR drops one step on the following progression for each step below 1 this reduction would make: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8.

The second quote shows that class levels are used as the indicator of PC class levels while non-player class levels are used as the indicator of NPC class levels.

The first quote is similar.

A Fighter has class levels, a Warrior has non-player class levels. It does not have class levels.

- Gauss

Dark Archive

Ok, but where do you get that Followers should have non-player class levels?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I let players choose from friendly NPCs they have met, appropriately leveled if needed, or they can give me a general type of cohort they want - "healer" or "bodyguard", etc, and I will then create an NPC to fill that role. They get appropriate NPC gear at first but then it's up to the PCs to keep them geared.

IMO, cohorts want to be adventurers so I would not allow "stay at home" types to be cohorts - that's not why they've attached themselves to the PC. Followers are much more for stay-at-home tasks, but I restrict followers to NPC classes.

I generally only ban Leadership if I have more than 4 players. It's just not needed in large parties.

The idea that followers have NPC classes comes from an old 3.5 reference, I beleive. I'm not sure that's RAW Pathfinder but it's sure a common houserule.


From a different Leadership thread I posted in, basically this is how I run leadership in my games:

The PC creates the Cohort.

The PC role-plays the Cohort.

The PC controls the Cohort in combat.

If anything comes up that may go against the Cohorts background, alignment, deity, or friendship with the PC, I have veto with the Cohorts actions.

Example: Recently I had a PC who tried to sell one of his followers souls to a demon in order to earn a favor from said demon, the NPC follower was NOT willing to do this by my veto power. Not only that, the follower left, with a few of his friends, and the PC's leadership score dropped, just for attempting it.

Other than that, there are very few restrictions I use with Cohorts, I could make everything really restrictive. But I think that would just take the fun away from everything. Not to mention. With retraining, if I handed someone a level 5 Warrior, the PC could just simply say, "Hey George, I'm really glad you decided to join us, but you know what, your skills aren't quite up to par, but your willingness and attitude are PERFECT for our group, so here's what I'm going to do, we're going to train you for the next 15 days, to become a true fighter, so you can help defend yourself, your town, your family and your friends so much better. And on top of that, I'll even pay for all your training, just because I like you so much, and it's only going to take 15 days out of your 80 year life-span, what do you say?"

I'm pretty sure most Cohorts would say yes, if the GM looked at me, and said, "Your level 5 Warrior doesn't want to be better at his job, for free, and has decided he doesn't like you anymore." I'd probably throw my dice at him.

My current campaign has 10+ players in it, I don't ban leadership, have never banned leadership, and probably never will.


Basically this is how I do it. Pc's can create a cohort, or pick one of the NPC's in the world. I only allow them to make a cohort once, then if that one dies they have to find an NPC (though the made cohort does not have to be the first one). I control the NPC unless their leadership score is 5 over what it needs to be for that cohort, then they get full control. I decide how to level the NPC unless they have a leadership score of 10 over what it needs to be.

I also use additional modifiers based on some of the ultimate campaign rules.


CrackedOzy,

I get Cohorts have class levels because Leadership says they do. Then I go look up what "class levels" mean and as shown in my quotes that means character class levels.

Then I see that Followers are NPCs with no statement that they have class levels. So, I go to the NPC section and make an NPC with NPC levels.

Cohorts have an exception to making an NPC with NPC levels, followers do not.

- Gauss

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Leadership All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice