| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I allow leadership.
GM and player create the cohort together. (Because the effect of spending a feat shouldn't be a surprise).
Player controls the cohort in battle.
It's not an extra PC, so if the cohort is chosen to scout; he goes out, he comes back and he reports.
Party must agree on loot sharing as they see fit.
And I allow you to obtain and/or hire cohorts and followers through RP, but leadership gives you some protection from schemers.
If it isn't working, we retcon.
If it's problematic, we talk it out.
Thoughts? I think leadership is a fine feat, it allows a player to gather a personal army or found his own town, even if he doesn't want to RP the whole thing.
Is it overpowered? not when the benefits are already available through reputation, story, money and/or RP.
I have no experience with Leadership, but in our current Kingmaker campaign, I intend to take Leadership for my politically ambitious Bard. My plan is not simply to have an extra party member, but I want someone who can be both my bodyguard, but also my representative in places where I'm not. Someone who I can send to negotiate while I'm taking care of other matters, someone who can run my estate while I'm away, who can deliver an important message for me, etc. Someone reliable who extends my reach.
I have no idea what kind of class would be appropriate. Cavalier maybe? He should be able to take care of himself, be smart and charismatic enough to get results in political matters, and not get himself in trouble too much.
Oh, and of course he should strongly believe that I'm the rightful king of Brevoy, but he should also shut up about it.
I'm the only GM in my local area who allows it. I enjoy it when my players take Leadership - it can give them a lot of tools to work with for story development. It's only "broken" if you, as the GM, allow it to become so. You are, always, the final arbiter of disputes. If the fashion in which they're employing it destroys the game, smack them upside the head with a rolled up newspaper and go "No. Bad."
That said, I usually end up making the NPC, the player controls him (except for certain circumstances where I have to step in, such as fear, rage, or when the player is abusing the cohort), and it's understood that they're supposed to treat the cohort well. If he doesn't, the cohort starts grumbling at first. If they continue to treat him poorly: he might leave, he might not, but they certainly take a penalty to their Leadership Score for mistreating their followers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to allow the use of leadership I would probaby require the character's personal and background be randomly generated using Ultimate Campaign rules treating them like an NPC that is run by the player for combat purposes only. It is still an independt character, that while loyal isn't going to do everything the player wants without question. I also forbid using the character for crafting (though crafting is forbidden in my games anyways).
I would allow the PC who took the feat to recruit a specific NPC that exists within the game or to specify a type of charcter they would like to recruit. For that I would probably group it such as:
1 Specialist) Rogue/Ninja, Monk, Bard
2 Martial)Fighter, Barbarian, Cavalier/Samurai, Gunslinger (if you use them)
3 Divine Martial) Paladin, Ranger, Inquisitor
4 Full Divine Caster) Cleric, Oracle, Druid
5 Full Arcane Caster)Sorcerer, Wizard, Witch
6 "Arcane Half Casters") Alchemist, Summoner, Magus
Let them select the group and then randomly determine which of the classes it actually is. The GM gets to decide feats up to the point in which the cohort meets the PC, at that point the PC can "influence" the feat and character development decisions the cohort makes. The cohort will come with gear appropriate for an NPC of their level, and the PC or group must outfit it from that point forward.
I also wouldn't allow more than one character to have it, or any characters to have it in a group of 6 or more players.
Leadership is far and away the most powerful feat in the game. It is the very definition of broken, and it's intended to be that way. It's not intended to be balanced, but it's very useful to have in a party of 3 or fewer PCs. If the party has at least 4 pcs, I won't allow it, and I don't care how much a player begs me =p.
For anyone who wants it for "roleplay" purposes... I'm a bit skeptical. I'm pretty sure just about any GM will let you have a bunch of first level admirers/peasants who will be your own fan club, without the feat. The only reason to take the feat is the cohort. And it's the cohort that is a "problem" from a balance perspective.
A ridiculously easy and effective thing for the cohort to do is to simply take skill focus: spellcraft and all the relevant crafting feats, sit back at base far away from danger, and craft magic items for the party at half price. If you want to step up your game you could make it a wizard who casts haste, or a bard that buffs the party, etc... Basically you get an entire PC turn for this feat.
Think of it this way, if you had an all martial party and every character took Power Attack (probably considered one of the best feats for martial characters) would that destroy the balance of your encounters? Not really... What if you took that same party and instead of Power Attack they all had Leadership? Now you've just doubled the amount of actions available to the party. There's no way that isn't "broken".
But like I said, it's not intended to be balanced. It's not on the same level as any other feat in the game.
Leadership gets a bad rap I feel, because people focus far to much on what direct mechanical benefits can be reaped from the cohort. I find it an excellent story mechanic that allows a player a bit more freedom in regard to fulfilling their characters long term goals (if they have any). I'll jot down a quick off the cuff example.
Our player is a "Sorcerer Supreme" and wants to found a new magic academy. So, he takes leadership and uses his followers as new students and faculty for the budding academy. He recruits a cohort to act as assistant dean to the academy and "school troubleshooter".
This cohort sometimes will go on adventures with the player and the rest of the group. Other times, the player will send the cohort off to drum up business, negotiate with other spell casters to advance the schools influence, or take care of things that the player wants to do, but really can't due to being a committed adventurer. Our player, through controlling the cohort is able to partake in additional minor roleplaying opportunities that advance his/her characters long term goals, WHILE the party continues on the main adventure. The DM doesn't have to have another body in combat every time and the player can enjoy the adventure and have fun with the cohort in more than just combats.
Hope that made sense, leadership is more than an extra body in combat. It's additional roleplaying opportunities and can be made to work very well when the player and DM agree to add it in as a method of story telling. Not just extra damage/powers. Also, using a cohort in this manner can ensure that the DM can work some encounters in to challenge the group that might be to easy if the cohort was always around. A cohort is a tool for story telling, not an extra +10 damage item.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
for ease we usually just leave everything up to the player, but as with all things the DM has Veto power. It's a collaborative game. At our table we collaborate.
I don't agree that leadership is all that powerful, compared to things like simulacrum, dominate person, and craft construct...
It's just a little something that works for non-casters as well as casters.
Simulacrum and dominate person are not feats. Craft Construct ... I really don't think so.
Xorran, have you EVER seen anybody take leadership when their cha was negative? I have not. But sure, lets suppose that you did. There are tons of built-in bonuses to make up for it. Do you have Great Renown? Its not clear what that means, but you could probably make a case that *any* 7th level character has done stuff to make them pretty well known. That's +2 if your GM allows it. Are you fair and generous? Easy +1. Do you have a base? Easy +2.
All you need to do is find a +2 bonus somewhere and you're back to your maximum cohort level. Or get a headband of alluring charisma.
And do not underestimate 4 level 3 wizards. They stay in the back while your all-marital party protects them, casting magic missiles or scorching rays or whatever. If they're level 5 wizards (really there's no excuse for them not to be) they're casting haste and displacement on your fighters while staying invisible for the entire combat.
A 20th level fighter with the Leadership feat and a wizard cohort can effectively cast 9th level spells. Think about that.
But, awp - why would you, as the GM, allow it to get to that point? If you suspect your player will abuse the feat - place restrictions down that prevents them from doing so. Worried everyone will take Leadership? Restrict it to only one PC per party. Worried about masses of Wizard followers? Make it so that the vast majority of their followers have NPC classes instead, or nudge the PCs into using the feat in a fashion that's more creative.
People can argue over what's fundamentally broken and what isn't all day, but when push comes to shove there's only one universal truth in balancing tabletop gaming: Nothing is broken unless the GM allows it to be so.
Simulacrum and dominate person are not feats. Craft Construct ... I really don't think so.
You're right, they're not feats, for the classes that have access to them they are a far less limited resource, for others they are magic items.
And comparing monster cohorts to what you can build with craft construct - it's numerically more powerful in regards to companion CR.But that's of course an opinion.
I don't see leadership as that more powerful than dominate person; if you mess too much with your new "friend's" moral compas - he leaves, but with dominate he can come back, and his untimely death doesn't cause a mark on your permanent record for future dominations :)
EDIT:
A 20th level fighter with the Leadership feat and a wizard cohort can effectively cast 9th level spells. Think about that.
So can the 17th level party wizard without the feat. And he doesn't even have to risk the GM telling him: "No, not today. You were a little harsh with me yesterday..."
That's restricting what the feat does. There's nothing in the rules that says only one character can take it. There's nothing in the rules that says it has to be an NPC class cohort (in fact it explicitly states otherwise).
The very fact that it's necessary to curtail it like such simply demonstrates that it's a feat that isn't balanced.
DonDuckie: Right, but what I said was that Leadership is the most powerful feat. I didn't say it was the single most powerful thing in the game.
Constructs take a ton of time and money to produce. Cohorts are immediate and free, that's why they're way better.
WIth Leadership I can take a wizard cohort that can *cast* dominate person.
DonDuckie: Right, but what I said was that Leadership is the most powerful feat. I didn't say it was the single most powerful thing in the game.
Constructs take a ton of time and money to produce. Cohorts are immediate and free, that's why they're way better.
WIth Leadership I can take a wizard cohort that can *cast* dominate person.
But why ban when other things are way more powerful - that's the part that doesn't really compute.
Cohorts take part of the treasure and may leave with it.
And the fact that you can take a wizard cohort makes (in my mind) the feat a great equalizer of classes(and I don't even want class equality).
Well, I would ban the use of Simulacrum too, if my campaigns ever reached 17+ level. That doesn't come up much. Reaching 7th level however, comes up a lot.
The leadership feat does not say that the Cohort takes a share of the party treasure.
It's not an equalizer at all. A wizard can just as easily take leadership as a fighter. Now he's a 20th level wizard with an 18th level wizard cohort, and gets to cast *two* 9th level spells on his action.
Dominate person is available at 9th. And I believe simulacrum is a 7th level spell. But that's besides the point.
The exact wording of the feat isn't a big deal for me, I would equip a cohort and expect others to do the same.
It's an equalizer in the sense, that 9th level spells are a bigger boost for class that doesn't already have them.
The feat does say it's an NPC, meaning he's under the GM's control... I really don't think a GM should mess too much with the player's choice of feats if the leadership feat is allowed. But the control is there.
But in exactly the same way; I don't think the GM should just hand out batman cohorts who live to serve as a mindless, spineless automatons.
Like enchantment spells and many other things, the power of them depends on the GM.
I just prefer to leave options open when I'm running a game. I used to ban way to much in pursuit of balance, but now I just want great stories, and I ask players not to abuse the options - works pretty well so far(relatively new thing).
Do you have Great Renown? Its not clear what that means, but you could probably make a case that *any* 7th level character has done stuff to make them pretty well known. That's +2 if your GM allows it. Are you fair and generous? Easy +1. Do you have a base? Easy +2.
All you need to do is find a +2 bonus somewhere and you're back to your maximum cohort level. Or get a headband of alluring charisma.
As you said, Great Renown is not defined. So you could make the argument for or against someone having it. Just being 7th level shouldn't qualify, but depending on the PCs deeds (which as DM you have some control over since you run the adventures) they may qualify.
For me to award you the Fair and Generous bonus, the PC would have to be...well, fair and generous. How often does he give stuff to the poor, help orphans, etc. So you would have to voluntarily reduce your wealth to get this. Wealth other PCs still have.
The Base only matters for Followers, not Cohorts, so isn't really anything to worry about since the conversation is mostly about "Cohorts are broken" not "Leadership is broken."
And getting a Headband of Alluring Charisma means you can't use another magic item for greater benefit to your character.
You keep saying things like, "A 20th level wizard with 18th level cohort can cast 2 9th level spells a round." This is wrong, the PLAYER may get two actions but not the character.
I also let PCs design and run cohorts, but with veto power. The feat doesn't add directly to CHARACTER power at all, but to the player or party's power a lot. We also tend to use them a "Game Saves" in that if your primary character dies, you can take the cohort as your PC.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I build the cohort, but I ask the player what they are looking for and build towards that. The player can choose to reject the cohort if they like. But, no cohorts that couldn't survive on their own but only exist to complement the PC.
Player controls the cohort, I have veto power.
Player can choose a friendly NPC if they like, but then they get the stats of that NPC, adjusted to the appropriate level.
Player controls the advancement after gaining the cohort.
Cohorts are attracted to the PC to be sidekicks and adventurers. No stay-at-home cohorts. Followers will stay at home if desired.
Cohorts have PC classes and start with appropriate NPC equipment. Unless taking an established NPC cohorts use the 15 14 13 12 10 8 stat array. Followers have NPC classes and likely no good equipment to speak of. Followers use the basic NPC 13 12 11 10 9 8 stat array. After gaining the cohort it is up to the player to update their gear.
Leadership with these guidelines is a powerful choice but not an overpowering one. Usually my players use it to shore up a missing role in the party.