I have no idea what you're trying to say and I don't care enough to wade through your wall of text. From the title, I assume you're going to say Leadership isn't always broken? I'm pretty sure everyone agrees on that. The problem is it's too easily abused and takes up more time.
Leadership isn't inherently broke. Its what you do with the rules provide little beyond basics and leave everything else to the cmb to decide how it works.
I don't think anyone has ever said it was always broken. Many times when people on the boards say "broken" they really mean "can easily cause problems at the table". An example of this is the summoner or any full caster.
To answer your questions I allow it, but I only allow the main cohort. If the party tries to make the cohort into an magic item generator, which has never been done, then I let them know that once the bad guys associate him with the party he can be a target if left alone. With that aside the NPC in question is not some mindless automation. He has real desires, and sitting back home making magic items is likely not what he signed up for. Him making magic items is not a problem for me, but that is just me. Many GM's dont like the idea. You still have to spend money on him to keep him geared up for combat so this is not all profit.
PS: I am well aware that you never said you intended to leave the NPC alone making magic items, but it is an idea I have seen here before.
I allow the full rules, as I trust the players not to abuse it. I mean, what are you going to do with 10 level 1 followers when you are at least level 7 yourself? I'm not worried about followers. And if players try to abuse the rules, I can always correct it.
So with one feat you doubled your action economy in combat, got a bunch of new abilities, the wealth of gear that a 5th level character comes with, picked up access to the resources of a library, and put a great deal of narrative focus on your character?
Other "good" feats offer things like ... a bonus to damage if you take a penalty on your attack roll.
So with one feat you doubled your action economy in combat, got a bunch of new abilities, the wealth of gear that a 5th level character comes with, picked up access to the resources of a library, and put a great deal of narrative focus on your character?
Other "good" feats offer things like ... a bonus to damage if you take a penalty on your attack roll.
As I recall, cohorts only get NPC-level wealth by default.
Dot.
Good story.
And I agree Leadership is fine as long as the DM doesn't let the player min/max a bunch of cheese. Yours apparently did not.
I also think it was a nice story, nice development.
I myself wouldn't have had a PC use Leadership for this NPC however. It seems like it would be easily represented by a Henchman. (Pc can spend feat on other things,a nd they are already paying the way for the NPC as is.
|
When I said that I try to play the cohort as still a goblin at heart, here is an example of what I mean:
In our last encounter, he was the first to notice the area we were in became very cold. There was a spring fed well that was getting a bit frosty. This tipped us off to the incorporeal in the next room. The goblin spent the entire encounter dipping his newly acquired dead rat in the water, chilling it, and eating it.
That sounds awesome.
Leadership ideally gives a decent way to mechanically keep track of particularly loyal NPCs who will more-or-less do what the PCs ask them to do. I've seen it used for drawing heads to arcane universities and temples, and it might be used to crew a boat in a current campaign. One player used it to give his character a spouse and extended family. Cohorts have been useful but not overpowering, and followers are mostly flavour. It absolutely can be abused if the GM is inclined, but so can a lot of things in the game (see: Simulacrum, Wish).
However, the contacts and relationships mechanics in Ultimate Campaign are probably a better way to represent things like the OP's pursuit of NPC connections. These mechanics are more complicated, but the nice thing is that they're not as all-or-nothing as Leadership is.
Anything can be not broken if you intentionally sandbag with it. That doesn't make it not generally disruptive.
I have never had a problem with it, and I let the players build the NPC. Yeah I dont allow the followers, but that is due to book keeping reasons. I knew the players in question would not do the job, and I was not going to do it either. I also know they would likely die quickly if they drew attention so no need to to even bring them in.
Deliberately pulling punches with an ability says nothing about the relative 'broken' level of the feat.
That's like someone saying 'wizards aren't broken, I am playing an INT 12 half-orc wizard with a greatsword and he isn't nearly as tough as the fighter!'
Wait... that did actually happen :-(
As I see it.
You're using leadership as its meant to be used. You're not creating minor characters who are, themselves, combat effective or story changers or extremely useful to the entire team by cutting magic item costs in two or the like.
You're collecting an assortment of people who owe you favors and trust you, and by taking the leadership feat you knit a sheathe of rules-support to help you manage these tag along's in your story. A goblin helper who can mend a few wounds with his limited supply of potions and spot some traps before you blunder into them is a very good example of a character who does not hog the spotlight yet still does a lot of basic work that is helpful. A Young "adopted" assistant that can carry some bags, keep an eye out during night shifts and hold the rope while you and the party climb up the cliff is also another example of someone useful without being overbearingly good.
It sounds like you and your Gm are on top of the "Leadership = OP" problem and manage to overcome it, most of those threads are made by GM's who have just realised that their players WBL has gotten way out of hand thanks to some invisible grunt laboring at a bench inside a Bag of holding (wearing a flask of air around his neck and a ring of sustenance on his finger) the entire campaign. Such tactics are awesome in their own right, but a smart Gm should know how to compensate (such as by introducing "Sunder" slightly more often then usual.)
Deliberately pulling punches with an ability says nothing about the relative 'broken' level of the feat.
That's like someone saying 'wizards aren't broken, I am playing an INT 12 half-orc wizard with a greatsword and he isn't nearly as tough as the fighter!'
Wait... that did actually happen :-(
Let me put it this way. The followers are a non factor power-wise, even the one time I allowed them. All they did was make me track more things. I don't track(book keep) for flavor, especially if the player wont do it.
:)
Leadership IME isn't broken if all Cohorts are real NPCs created by the GM, recruited in play, and played as real people - the goblin cohort counts. It's broken if the GM lets the player create an NPC cohort to perfectly compliment their character.
Most of the complaints come from the magic item creation. I have never seen a complaint about a fighter or other melee class through leadership. No, I am not saying those are broken either. I am saying the feats(item creation) are not for everyone, just like many other things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the complaints come from the magic item creation. I have never seen a complaint about a fighter or other melee class through leadership. No, I am not saying those are broken either. I am saying the feats(item creation) are not for everyone, just like many other things.
The craftbot does tend to be one of the more common points of complaint with cohorts. the other one is that, similar to animal companions, eidolons, and summons, they add a another set of actions to the team.
And, of course, the question of who designs and controls the cohort is an eternal sticking point. I think Leadership is something where the player and GM really need to work together to come up with something that works for both of them. The cohort should be recruited in-game, but I see no issues with the player and GM talking out what kind of cohort the player wants, and then the GM making sure a recruitment opportunity comes up. As far as the mechanics go, I lean towards letting the player design the cohort, given that player does pay a feat for it. Naturally, the GM does have the right to turn down anything that seems a bit excessive/abusive.
I always let my players design the cohort. It is one less thing I have to do, and since I am normally a better optimize than most people I play with it is to my advantage to let them make it.
As for control I don't think either it should be a DM or player only issue. If the GM trust the player to be fair then the player can do it. Otherwise the GM can do it.
I always let my players design the cohort. It is one less thing I have to do, and since I am normally a better optimize than most people I play with it is to my advantage to let them make it.
I don't design cohorts - I create NPCs. If the PC has Leadership feat & high enough Leadership they can then attempt to recruit suitable NPCs encountered in-game, eg Trinia Sabor in Crimson Throne.
I do occasionally let a player design their Cohort. But they use one of 4 preset stat arrays and no Point Buy shenanigans. Cohorts are NPCs not players. They don't use the WBL table for PCs either. Optimization shouldn't be an issue either since the cohort needs a reasonably well rounded skillset.
Another usefull guideline is that potential Cohorts are probably kinda poor, which is why they need a job.
On Craftbots, there had better be a good reason that someone with that skillset is hitching on to a full time adventurer. That reason can't be "because I'm so cool" either. Dedicated Item Crafters have the ability to get fabulously rich all on their own, they've sacrificed their own combat utility for crafting too. That type of individual is not putting themselves in mortal harm to crank out new "Shinys" for some murderhobo that in virtually every circumstance Should be Working for the Crafter.
The workbench in the Extradiminsional space with a Ring of Sustenance and an Air Bottle is cute, but that's a Slave, not a trusted Cohort.
Followers have always been kinda easy. But they have ZERO impact on combat, outside of mass combat situations, and most players leave them at home to guard their kids, wives, comic books or whatever.
I can agree with Wraithstrike though that I'm not doing the accounting.
I do occasionally let a player design their Cohort. But they use one of 4 preset stat arrays and no Point Buy shenanigans. Cohorts are NPCs not players. They don't use the WBL table for PCs either. Optimization shouldn't be an issue either since the cohort needs a reasonably well rounded skillset.
Another usefull guideline is that potential Cohorts are probably kinda poor, which is why they need a job.
On Craftbots, there had better be a good reason that someone with that skillset is hitching on to a full time adventurer. That reason can't be "because I'm so cool" either. Dedicated Item Crafters have the ability to get fabulously rich all on their own, they've sacrificed their own combat utility for crafting too. That type of individual is not putting themselves in mortal harm to crank out new "Shinys" for some murderhobo that in virtually every circumstance Should be Working for the Crafter.
The workbench in the Extradiminsional space with a Ring of Sustenance and an Air Bottle is cute, but that's a Slave, not a trusted Cohort.Followers have always been kinda easy. But they have ZERO impact on combat, outside of mass combat situations, and most players leave them at home to guard their kids, wives, comic books or whatever.
I can agree with Wraithstrike though that I'm not doing the accounting.
I do agree that since cohorts are NPC's they should be use the stat array listed in the book, and get NPC wealth. After that it is up to the player to keep them geared up. It seems like we are very similar with how we do things for this feat.
I don't design cohorts - I create NPCs. If the PC has Leadership feat & high enough Leadership they can then attempt to recruit suitable NPCs encountered in-game, eg Trinia Sabor in Crimson Throne.
Assuming it's not a campaign that's heavily scripted, like an Adventure Path, how would respond to a player saying something along the lines of "I'm planning to take leadership at some point in the future: is there a way to include a (not-outlandish thing the player would like as a cohort) in the campaign so that they would be available when I take leadership?"
If I own a car, and the car is missing the right front wheel, then I can still probably drive that car as long as I put a bunch of weight in the back left seat and only make slow right hand turns.
Is that car "not always broken" ..?
I don't design cohorts - I create NPCs. If the PC has Leadership feat & high enough Leadership they can then attempt to recruit suitable NPCs encountered in-game, eg Trinia Sabor in Crimson Throne.Assuming it's not a campaign that's heavily scripted, like an Adventure Path, how would respond to a player saying something along the lines of "I'm planning to take leadership at some point in the future: is there a way to include a (not-outlandish thing the player would like as a cohort) in the campaign so that they would be available when I take leadership?"
My general answer is yes.
Most players want Leadership for story reasons. It's a strong choice for attracting an apprentice, starting a guild or Buisness or founding a settlement, monastery, school or temple.The distinction I make between a Cohort, which comes with Leadership, and a Henchman which doesn't require a feat is that Cohorts actually become a semi-feature. Cohorts don't turn on you, can't be bribed, spy on you or inform on you; providing they are reasonably well treated. Henchmen can serve story purposes and the player never retains full control of Henchmen. A usefull methodology is to allow the Player full control of a Cohort, but float a henchman around to all of the players and occasionally run it yourself. I tend to rotate the Henchmen between the best 2 or 3 Roleplayers. Though I have one at the table who flatly refuses to RP henchmen (he will run them in combat situations though).
Followers are like Cohorts, but slightly more susceptible to bribes (if they are unhappy) or infiltration by spies. Generally this should be a very loyal group.
I do have a house rule where Leadership is only fully available to Fighters, with "unlimited access". Meaning they can recruit any class, and vary up alignments to close to their own. Fighters don't need a purpose before taking Leadership. They are just famous enough that people tend to seek them out to be led if the Fighter is willing (takes the feat).
My rationale is that the Fighter is an easily understandable figure. He's good with weapons, and he does "big" things without triggering any superstitions or behaving in ways that are suspect.
Rogues can attract any cohort, but the alignments need to be close or identical. Followers are going to be warriors or expert/rogue types. He only gets followers with the establishment of a guild, Buisness, land holding or a gang (syndicate).
Paladins attract paladins and divine casters. Unless he has a "Cause", where he can attract anything that can be LG. No deviation in alignment at all. Followers are warriors, only with a cause but a Pally doesnt need a holding (physical property) to house them permanently and can release them once his cause is done (this is unique to the paladin). He may recall followers with a new Cause.
Rangers are treated like rogues.
Monks attract Monks. This is a student basically. Though I might allow another class that wants to multiclass into Monk. Followers are Monks and that takes a school or monastery.
Bards are rogues.
Barbarians can attract Barbarians, rangers, bards or Druid cohorts. Identical alignments. Followers are warriors only, needs a land holding or territory. Barbarians make bad leaders, I feel Rage is a mechanic that makes them hard to justify this feat. It is useful though when they have a barbarian centric Cause.
Cavaliers are like Fighters. This class can get dangerous with just the followers if the Cohort is also a Cav, they start stacking tactics. I saw this put to good use in Kingmaker (which is an AP that was built for Leadership.) Wandering monster encounters were non issues sometimes.
Gunslingers could be treated like Fighters, but Guns are rare and they can blow up in your face. So followers aren't jumping at that. Cohorts aren't unlikely though.
Alchemists are inherently kinda crazy. So this class is actually fun to play with. Just keep in mind that alchemists experiment on themselves, tinker with poisons and things explode around them. The people who are attracted to that may not actually be assets.
Oddly however I'm finding that Alchemists are rapidly becoming the go to Cohort request (replacing the bard).
Casters beyond the Bard.
Regular folks aren't likely to jump at the chance to hang with people who traffic with Outsiders, Elementals and make stuff go BOOM! PCs love magic, regular folk, not so much. The locals like having a relatively benign spellcaster in the vicinity that's not the same as being neighbors and no where near actually sharing a roof.
If full casters want a land holding, Leadership is an option for followers but it needs a Mundane population for mundane followers to sign up for this. the land holding needs to be a non magical type of operation too. A traditional Buisness or local government.
There are easier and cheaper ways to get an apprentice and followers should never be full progression casters (Adepts are ok in small numbers). Plus one of the recurrent themes for apprentice spellcasters in D&D is that they frequently turn on the master for a variety of reasons.
So I generally don't allow Leadership for casters.
I know someone will say clerics and Druids are naturals for this but there is a big BUT. These classes are closely tied to deities in most games. Deities are the Leaders really and the PC clergy is a proxy. It's better to simulate leadership with the Ultimate Campaign rules since the divine casters are actually part of an extended church hierarchy and truly loyal companions are hard to come by when conflicting personalities all have a direct link to "God".
I don't design cohorts - I create NPCs. If the PC has Leadership feat & high enough Leadership they can then attempt to recruit suitable NPCs encountered in-game, eg Trinia Sabor in Crimson Throne.Assuming it's not a campaign that's heavily scripted, like an Adventure Path, how would respond to a player saying something along the lines of "I'm planning to take leadership at some point in the future: is there a way to include a (not-outlandish thing the player would like as a cohort) in the campaign so that they would be available when I take leadership?"
If I'm running a sandbox, I'd probably tell the player whether thing X existed in the campaign and if so I might let them attempt to find and recruit thing X. Or if thing X was already part of the PC's backstory, then that would probably be fine. All the current cohorts IMCs were created by me though, and I generally much prefer that to PC-created cohorts. For one thing it means I'm confident I know how they think, I have an internal aspect on them.
I'm generally very very wary of allowing full-progression caster cohorts, though, unless they are the same class as the PC.
Are we really back to comparing a level (pc-2) hireling, however bad he can be build, with a +1 to attack?
And don't gimme crap about how he can die, even if he only takes 1 attack he's still way more HP than toughtness, even as a level 1 warrior.
Leadership is only broken if you try use it to increase wealth, which the Campaign books suggests should not be done. I strongly suggest this should not be allowed, unless limited. Yes, my Bard Alchemist cohort does make potions at cost, but potions don't ruin the balance like other stuff can.
It's a perfect way to add a missing element to the party, such a utility caster to cast Fly on the Fighter, a heal-bot, a tanks, or a trap-finder.
It also adds good RPing possibilities.