My game that I'm running will approaching lvl 7 soon, and when it does I know that I have some players that may start to become interested in this feat. It has some very obvious abuse factors to consider, and I was wondering how other DMs out there deal with them.
Do you as the DM roll and make the character for the player that they take as a cohort? Do you force them to 'quest' and/or role play to find such a character? Do you allow them to make up their own cohorts?
The obvious scare factor here should be someone taking a wizard who specializes in Magic Item Crafting, and allows the player to get all of their gear for half price, not to mention the fact that they now have a personal buffer and battlefield controller.
|
It varies widely. I have seen some DM's make and control the cohort. They make them useful but not powerful (no god wizards but maybe rogue/bards) and have them always play a supporting roll unless they need to do something big to save someone's bacon. Others let them have free reign to make and play whatever they want. Some players will make a more reasonable support character, while others will abuse it. In a party of less than 4, I would let the player do what they want. With bigger parties, I would exercise more control. Just remember that magic items for the cohort come from the PC's gold and magic items. So they will mostly get the stuff that are second hand cast offs.
They can "make" their cohorts their backstory and so on.
But I have to aprove it.
This means they make it and i then change some things here and there i think should be changed based on the backstory and so on.
I dont usually allow a crafting cohort only wizard (while sure your cohort can have crafting feats, some of them not only them), same way i prefer them to make something better than a heal drone cleric to follow them around (but this is something that can be needed)
So basically i make sure they can have the feat , but to create characters who have a personality , who have an objective in life and who are not just a stupid mindless tool they drag around and who conveniently only get feats/skills that make it the actually perfect tool.
On terms of points , money ... I treat the cohort at the point the player makes it equal to a PC. (So starting gold = a PC of that level , but after that you are the one who is going to give him gold. HD , dice stat rolls ... all the same the PCs got)
Now , the only actual problem i have with the feat is when there are too many players/NPCs going around all the time. This takes a LOT of time. So if there are 4 players , maybe i will take control of events to only allow 2 cohorts per adventure for example.
The way i give them the cohort varies also. What is the player/cohort backstory? They know each other already? Are they friendly? Is it a NPC the PC never saw before? All this in taken into account. Sometimes there will be indeed the need of a quest , sometimes they will meet the cohort during another quest they were already doing (sometimes this calls for extra chances to the PC to shine so the cohort actually have the link to the PC) , anyway , much can go on here.
Leadership
It is a toughy... give a player free reign and it is the best feat in the game hands down. Take too many gm liberties and it can be a waste of time.
I find that somewhere in the middle works. Firstly I try to limit the number of players eho take the feat... I suggest also that any cohort be made with an attempt to not bog down combat. Simple support like a bard that performs and casts some buffs can work just fine.
Keep in mind that these cohorts are not slaves.. they are friends and followers. They have their own hopes goals and fears. A player that is abusive should lose the priviledge. How you handle leadership can change from player to player and game to game.
I have used the feat myself to great effect and it can often be a very cool roleplaying experience when the player defines their relationship with the cohort as something other than their battle butler.
Is this the monk's top pupil? The wizards apprentice? A cousin or sibling? A trainie in the cavalier's order? A childhood friend?
The only time I've seen it in action, the DM made the cohort and the player controlled it. Aside from rare moments of, "She wouldn't do that," everything went well.
So long as you have an accommodating DM who understands the basic concept of what you want in the cohort, this works fine.
My friend just wanted a flanking buddy.
|
Cohorts in combat bogs the game down immensely because the player usually has to manage not only another creature, but one with as many options as a PC and with decidedly different combat strategy and tactics.
Because of this, I do not allow the Leadership feat in parties larger than three. My rule of thumb would be that PCs+Cohorts = 4 characters, 5 max if at least one of the cohorts has a very specific combat role (healer usually).
I let the players choose and create the cohorts, but it has to make sense and flavor in the story (add to it rather than detract from it). I let the players play them too, but when needed I inform them of the cohort' specific goals and thoughts so that they can play them as real characters rather than mindless extensions of the player.
For one of my player who wanted a useless but flavorful servant from the very beginning of the AP, I made up a trait that gives him exactly that.
Banned.
The is only one solution to Leadership. Here, take this.
I allow the cohort, and the cohort only. He also starts off with NPC wealth for his level since he is an NPC. If he is intended to stay home and craft then he may be killed the player will have to invest in defending him.
I ban it.
I hear a lot of cranky GM's and players banning it, because of possible abuse. Leadership is an extra responsibility for both the GM and the player and if you do not monitor it carefully, it may be abused. The main part is to make sure everybody is still having fun. And if you are affraid that it may bog down gameplay then set time limits for decisions.
Whether or not you will allow the players to construct their own Cohorts and (possible)followers is your decision, but monitor it closely to avoid abuse.
It's possible to gain loads of extra story hooks for the GM.
Always confer with the player(s) wanting the feat, what role they want for their Cohort/ Followers. Realise that the Cohort is a friend/admirer of the player and not a mindless zombie. As a friend they will not to be locked away mass producing magic items. But constructing magic items together seems a viable option to me.
Depending on the cohorts class let the player reasonably control the cohort. Don't let the cohort be used as the main fighter of the group, as that's a player's risk and not an NPC's risk. That doesn't mean a fighter-type cohort should be cowering at the back, it will try to support the player as that's his/her friend and remember that the cohorts own safety comes first. As an NPC the cohort will have a morale rating and may flee if it is confronted with a serious threat.
As always decide whether or not you want the extra work and remember to have fun.
I allowed it in my campaign only because the group was lacking a static healer, since they went Rogue, Gunslinger, Monk, Fighter, Necromancer. The Rogue player took a Witch and is their support/healer, and it's worked well.
That being said, he made his cohort using NPC stats, which was his own idea, not mine. I also had him use GPL as per a PC -1 level, and really it's not been an issue. Though if I could go back in time, I would probably ban the feat, honestly.
Overall I don't like the cohort when you have four or more players in a party. Too many people, unless you're running your own campaign and not an AP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do I handle Leadership? Ban it and pretend that no writer ever actually thought a second character was somehow equivalent in value to a feat.
I allow it. Most of my players don't want the extra work involved running a second character that I have full override on. I start them with NPC gear and stats, how they then develop mechanically is up to the player.
I also insist that the player essentially consider them an apprentice/companion. If they tried to create a "stay at home crafter", they're in for a rude shock when said character secretly follows them on their adventures.
|
|
I allow it. Usually my players will use the cohort to run their day to day affairs and i have had it happen where the entire group takes the leadership feat and essentially creates the B team to their A team. So long as you treat them as really helpful NPC's I dont see why its such a big deal but it can require monitoring.
I allow leadership for actual leaders. If all you want out of leadership is a cohort then I will not allow the player to take the feat. If you are a cleric who wants to setup his own temple or a Thief that wants to found his own guild that is fine. If on the other hand you don’t want to be bothered by all the low level followers when they start showing up you are not allowed the feat.
This also means that you now have to not only support yourself and you cohort, you also have to support all the other low level characters. Support means you need to house and equip all characters as appropriate for their role. Failure to do so results in a -1 cumulative penalty to your leadership score. This penalty is temporary and goes away when the followers are properly equipped. Turning away a follower also results in a similar penalty.
This also takes care of the problem of crafting items because the player has a lot of other expenses he needs to worry about so may not have as much money as he thought he would. Throw a couple of unexpected expenses at the player and you can easily keep the crafting abuse under control. Sorry My lord we did not get the magic sword you wanted finished because we had to repair the stable.
|
I ban it for three reasons:
1: It slows down combat, even just a little bit
2: If a character wants a friend, compatriot, ally, or servant, I'd rather them roleplay to get it. The cohort is more likely to become a living breathing NPC than a class feature.
3: It is overpowered. Saying that an extra character (Leadership) is equal to, say, +1 to attack with a specific weapon (Weapon Focus) is a bit strange in my book.
I'm pretty permissive with it. Had one game (3.5 but close enough) in which we had 2 PCs with leadership and adventuring cohorts, 2 more with 3 cohorts between them (gained as knights from Deck of Many Things), a druid with an animal companion, and a shadowdancer with a shadow companion. It was a busy group, but we played with some big adventures so it wasn't a significant problem.
I made most of the cohorts, approved the other two, ran them all myself in non-combat times, and allowed the players to control them in combat.
It's also important to note that I don't believe any of my players set out to abuse the system, I didn't increase the amount of treasure available to the PCs so they had to equip their own cohorts out of the their own shares, and we've been playing together for over a dozen years so there's a lot of trust on both sides of the screen and that greatly reduces my need for strict oversight.
In the game I'm currently playing, the Skull and Shackles AP, as captain of the ship, I took Leadership. We had recently split the crew between our main ship and a second ship and I've taken the captain of the 2nd ship as my cohort. She doesn't adventure with us much, but I'm now pretty confident she'll rise in levels as I do and will be loyal with the amount of her plunder that's supposed to come my way. Plus, I'll be using the followers I gain as contacts in a variety of ports - great for plumbing the rumor mill.
My only requirement with leadership is (1) you have to be able to run your own character without help, and (2) I have to approve the cohort (fits thematically, isn't overlapping a role already filled, etc.).
Otherwise I let the player run it, occasionally stepping in if it feels like the cohort is breaking character.
I give them starting gear as an NPC. How the group handles giving them treasure from there is up to them.
I think crafting cohorts are lame, but other DMs in my group have been fine with that and even preferred it to cohorts that participate in fights.
Cohorts are neat, but people who can barely manage their own character have no business running a second one.
I don't allow Leadership in my game. I give enough NPCs to fill roles that the party doesn't otherwise have, but only because I don't believe my group can handle multiple characters. If I had a more experienced group, I may consider it.
That is definetly an issue. I allready mentioned it's a large responsibility and if your players aren't up to that, you could consider banning the feat. I generally think that Cohorts and followers involve a campaign leading to some kind of stronghold, big ship (requiring crew) or guild/temple. The feat and possible abuse is most likely not meant for a party starting to learn about roleplaying. But I would be more worried about a munchkin in the party or a party consisting of munchkins.
I allow. But with some restrictions.
- If the group is at 5 or more PC's already, I don't want it except for vey special circumstances.
- If the player already has a hard time running his own PC (whether he is a noob or just has trouble), then I don't think he should try to handle it.
- The player nearly always runs the cohort unless the player tries to make him do something completely out of character.
- I vastly prefer it to not be an overly complex or pet class unless the player is extremely capable or some other special circumstance.
- Cohort will never be good enough to outshine the PC's.
- They say what they are looking for and I build the cohort. This can be as general as I want a meat shield for my squishy caster (but has to be able to keep up with me). To as specific as I want a fighter archer to interrupt casters and destroy their component pouch or holy symbol.
- At the BEST, the cohort has NPC gear and stat point buy 1 category lower than what the PC's used.
- Cohort gear comes out of the PC's share not an even group split. Although if the entire group agrees on some other split method, I will not overrule them. But I don't like "Hey Bob is helping keep all you guys alive to so he should get an equal share." It is a feature of the players PC, not theirs.
- I much prefer the players to do some actual role playing to get their cohort (not so much for followers). Examples:
My 5th level wizard started going to all the combat academies in every city we entered asking about potential body guards.
We encountered a 'warforged jugernaut' that was a guard but being treated poorly. We had proved our worthiness by beating him but not killing him (we could have easily). So we hired him and treated him much better.
Party freed a man about to be turned into some kind of undead. He agreed to become a cohort for one of them.
- Special circumstances - sometimes there is a good enough reason even if I would normally not allow a cohort. Examples:
PC's managed to steal a ship as part of their getaway. None of them know anything about ships (and have no real desire to learn). But they want the relatively safe transport and the potential operating cover of a trade ship. If they want a loyal/skilled captain as a cohort, I will allow it. He wouldn't normally be involved with most combats so won't slow the game down.
Party decided to spend a bunch of time in a country run by 'Merchant Princes.' But to be taken seriously, you have to be a successful businessman. None of the players are really interested in that. So they hired a 'trade factor' to do most of the business for them. We set it up so that normally the factor gets a decent profit to keep up appearances of a moderately lavish minor Merchant Prince lifestyle. But I specifically told them he wouldn't do as well as I would allow if one of the PC's decided to go for the skills in a big way and role play it out. It had no effect on combat. Gave them a fairly secure base and a position in society from which to operate/influence.
Group has been doing a poor job of finding out about the laws and customs of the places they travel or how to do business there. I let one of them have a cohort that is samurai 3/expert 3 (lawyer/merchant). he can fight well enough to defend himself but mostly has some knowledge and social skills for out of combat situations. If the player is stupid and tries taking him into the fights with the BBEG, he will probably die or leave.
Like with a lot of the game, I try to not just say no. But I won't let it be just a combat (or wealth) multiplier.
Leadership is very much a “depends on the campaign” type of Feat. Probably the most “depends on the campaign” feat out there, to be honest.
As noted above, most people try to smash it into oblivion with a ban hammer for most game types.
Honestly, if you’re already running a game your best bet is probably to ban it.
However, there are some times where it comes in very handy for both GMs & PCs…
Too few PCs campaigns - if you only have two or three players, especially if some of them tend to show late, leave early or flake completely cohorts can really make a difference.
New PCs in an existing campaign - especially if the player is new and with several veteran players, having a cohort that can function as a gaming version of the grizzled non-com to give advise to the character of the newer player can be invaluable in making it both a fun experience in gaming in general and give a good mechanism for the game world-related questions the player may want to ask to be handled in game.
Higher threat campaigns – some campaigns are just a lot more deadly and dangerous than others and the leadership skill can be an excellent mechanism to allow for the occasional safety net for when the group gets partially or wholly tpw’d and needs extra resources to come get their bodies &/or stuff out. (I’m in a campaign where I got killed more than half the games I’ve attending at levels 13+ and having a cleric cohort helped keep us going more than once.)
Keeping the fun (but possibly useless) NPC around – sometimes a GM will introduce an NPC that the PCs will get attached to and want to keep around. Leadership is a good mechanism to give the players a bit more control over the NPC and make their character seem a bit more heroic by “recruiting” minions like a “proper hero” gets their sidekick.
“More action / less shopping !” games – another type of the “high threat” games mentioned above – sometimes both the GMs & the PCs may get tired of all the math involved in playing through the normal “magic mart” type of campaign, but not want to be completely stuck without the resources of being able to make desired or needed items. I’ve seen Leadership used to sort of bridge the gap and allow the GM & PCs to have a mechanism for an “in-game” hand-wave of a lot of the things needed to craft or upkeep magic items & alchemical expendables.
If you do decide to allow for Leadership, I would definitely make sure that you at least vet all of the cohorts who show up and make sure that you know what they are going to do to aid the PCs they are affiliated with. Be aware that those that aren’t “stay at home” cohorts will be affecting the speed of your combats and giving the PCs additional actions in combat. Decide ahead of time and try to communicate to your players if you are implementing any house rules (like simultaneous initiative, declared actions before the round, or a maximum amount of time to decide on an action before losing the turn automatically going on delay).
Hope that helps.
-TimD
As a DM, I'm the opposite of 99% of the others on the thread. I love, love, LOVE it when PCs take Leadership. I encourage the players to design and run their own cohorts. I have them describe to me how they're going to feed, quarter, and equip all their troops. I let them establish small fiefdoms in the campaign world.
All of this helps bring the world to life. Powerful adventurers become integral parts of the setting, with friends and allies and bases of operation -- instead of just being nameless murder hobos.
With an experienced DM and experienced players, Leadership is a great blessing when someone chooses to spend the feat on it.
P.S. I don't worry about combat -- guys 2 levels below par tend to get killed quickly in the battles I run, meaning that you've now got the "dead cohort" penalty to Leadership forever. Most PCs leave their cohorts at home, commanding their other followers, rather than expecting them to tag along on all their adventures.
|
|
I will allow Leadership under some strict conditions:
If the table is 4 or more PCs (which our table always is) then the cohort is 100% completely a NON-adventuring cohort. The cohort will never appear on a battle mat or roll initiative. PERIOD.
I've still had several players take them. Some use them as downtime crafters. Some as pre-adventuring day (long duration spell) buffers. Some take them just for roleplaying reasons.
I always allow the players complete freedom in building their cohorts. All I ever ask is a bit of backstory on where they came from.
Just how I do it. Shrug.