ShadowcatX wrote: JoeJ wrote: I don't even know how you would compare two feats that do completely different things. How would you compare, for example, the ability to command undead with the ability to use improvised weapons without a penalty?
Fortunately, I don't need to compare Leadership with anything. A feat is broken if it decreases the degree to which the players and GM are entertained. Leadership, handled properly (as the OP does) can be very entertaining. Therefore it isn't broken.
By going "Oh look, this one is useful and this one isn't"?
And your definition of broken is not only vastly different from the generally accepted definition of broken (as in significantly over powered) but also entirely subjective and therefore entirely useless. My definition is no more subjective than yours. "Useful"? To whom? And under what circumstances? All the feats are useful. Any one of them could mean the difference between success and TPK in the right situation.
Are you saying that Leadership is less or more useful than Command Undead?
JoeJ wrote: ShadowcatX wrote: JoeJ wrote: I don't even know how you would compare two feats that do completely different things. How would you compare, for example, the ability to command undead with the ability to use improvised weapons without a penalty?
Fortunately, I don't need to compare Leadership with anything. A feat is broken if it decreases the degree to which the players and GM are entertained. Leadership, handled properly (as the OP does) can be very entertaining. Therefore it isn't broken.
By going "Oh look, this one is useful and this one isn't"?
And your definition of broken is not only vastly different from the generally accepted definition of broken (as in significantly over powered) but also entirely subjective and therefore entirely useless. My definition is no more subjective than yours. "Useful"? To whom? And under what circumstances? All the feats are useful. Any one of them could mean the difference between success and TPK in the right situation.
Are you saying that Leadership is less or more useful than Command Undead?
First, some feats are only useful in EXTREMELY specific situations that are virtually 100% under the DM's control, while other feats are virtually always useful. Think of the past 100 combats your characters have been in, which has been more generally useful, power attack or skill focus: underwater basket weaving.
Second, I can use leadership to gain command undead, along with a host of other feats, spells, etc.
A crafting cohort is worth 1 feat per magic item creation feat that they take. So a cohort who has 5 crafting feats is worth 5 feats to their PC. Technically they don't craft quite as well as the PC, but the fact that they can craft while the PC is adventuring more than makes up for it.
A combat cohort is worth about 1/2 a PC if they have PC level wealth and ability scores, or 1/3 a PC if they have NPC wealth and ability scores. That's going by the standard 2 CR-2 monsters = 1 CR monster and adjusted by 1 for PC wealth/stats.
Either way, Leadership is worth far more than a single feat most of the time unless deliberately gimped.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So useful = broken? Interesting. Apparently you've overlooked the fact that ALL feats are only useful in situations that are 100% under GM control.
The biggest incorrect assumption, however, is that Leadership gives you extra feats, which it does not. A cohort is not a slave or an automaton. They are a thinking, feeling NPC. Whatever gear they have is theirs, not yours. You don't get to choose their feats, skills, or even class, although you can certainly make suggestions.
Most importantly, nowhere in the feat description does it say that they'll work for free. You have to pay them for all those magic items they're sitting around making, and if they adventure with you they'll expect a fair cut of the loot.
The big advantage of Leadership, and the reason I consider it possibly the best feat in the game, is its ability to create new opportunities and motivation for adventuring. Attaching an NPC to the party that the players actually care about is like GM gold.
On the one hand, I would agree that Leadership is not mechanically balanced against most feats.
On the other hand, by 7th level many campaigns and characters start getting beyond dungeon-clearing or monster-slaying for a living. They begin "mattering" in a larger way to the powers and people they co-exist with. At 7th level, they are remarkable and quite heroic compared to, well, most everyone they will meet.
From that perspective, Leadership begins to make sense. Is it mechanically balanced against other feats you'd get around 7th level? No. But as you get up in levels and your Leadership score starts creeping into the double digits, and you start investing some of your wealth into something permanent, the cohort and the followers add a defining flavor and become apropos for a character of that stature.
Something else comes to mind. While any character can theoretically pick up Leadership, I can't help but think that the most likely one to do so is a Fighter who isn't necessarily pursuing an optimization build. I don't want this to turn into a side-topic that distracts from the OP's intent for this thread, but given that so many threads focus on how the Fighter is so underpowered... I wonder if Leadership isn't a great way of mitigating this perceived weakness - especially at higher levels.
A Fighter with a Leadership of 15-20, for instance, is the master of a small army for all intents and purposes. There's a lot that 10 or more 1st-level followers can do in a round to aid a Fighter. And that goes even further when you consider that followers are typically individuals with NPC levels - not always so.
JoeJ wrote: So useful = broken? Interesting. Apparently you've overlooked the fact that ALL feats are only useful in situations that are 100% under GM control.
The biggest incorrect assumption, however, is that Leadership gives you extra feats, which it does not. A cohort is not a slave or an automaton. They are a thinking, feeling NPC. Whatever gear they have is theirs, not yours. You don't get to choose their feats, skills, or even class, although you can certainly make suggestions.
Most importantly, nowhere in the feat description does it say that they'll work for free. You have to pay them for all those magic items they're sitting around making, and if they adventure with you they'll expect a fair cut of the loot.
The big advantage of Leadership, and the reason I consider it possibly the best feat in the game, is its ability to create new opportunities and motivation for adventuring. Attaching an NPC to the party that the players actually care about is like GM gold.
The description of leadership does say you attract a "loyal" cohort, so there's only so much they'll push back against your requests.
As far as paying them a fair share of the loot, that's something you as a PC would want to do anyway. That makes them much more effective and useful to you. Give them 1/2 share of the treasure and they'll effectively be 1/2 a character in combat/adventuring/crafting value (worth FAR more than 1 feat in value). Best of all, they cost you no experience since any XP they gain is in addition to what the party gets.
As far as motivation, you don't need leadership as an excuse to attach a NPC to the party. If you as GM want an NPC to adventure with the party, there is absolutely nothing to stop you from doing so. In fact, you have far more flexibility this way since you can replace the NPC whenever it's plot appropriate instead of having to have the same one all the time. Plus while 1 cohort may not cause too many problems in the grand scheme of things, 4 cohorts definitely will if every PC takes the leadership feat.
zagnabbit wrote: 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.
...
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.
...
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'm not sure why having a deity at the top of things makes it hard to find loyal companions. It sure doesn't decrease the loyalty of religious organizations IRL, and while real-life priests don't get magic they often (always?) do believe they have a direct and personal link to their divine source. In any case, it certainly shouldn't be any different from a paladin recruiting followers who are loyal to a cause the paladin champions rather than the paladin personally.
Also, making it hard for arcane casters to have followers because of superstition or backstabbing only makes sense if superstition and backstabbing are common in your campaign setting, which is not the default.
Unless you're using leadership as a method to give martial characters a power boost as Phoebus Alexandros suggested, in which case...
Phoebus Alexandros wrote: Something else comes to mind. While any character can theoretically pick up Leadership, I can't help but think that the most likely one to do so is a Fighter who isn't necessarily pursuing an optimization build. I don't want this to turn into a side-topic that distracts from the OP's intent for this thread, but given that so many threads focus on how the Fighter is so underpowered... I wonder if Leadership isn't a great way of mitigating this perceived weakness - especially at higher levels. Not really, since not every fighter is going to be interested in developing a following. Trying to boost a class with an ability that's only going to be of interest to a subset of character concepts within that class is clumsy. Not to mention that in practice, I've seen all types of character classes picking up leadership, not just fighters or martials.
Celanian wrote: JoeJ wrote: So useful = broken? Interesting. Apparently you've overlooked the fact that ALL feats are only useful in situations that are 100% under GM control.
The biggest incorrect assumption, however, is that Leadership gives you extra feats, which it does not. A cohort is not a slave or an automaton. They are a thinking, feeling NPC. Whatever gear they have is theirs, not yours. You don't get to choose their feats, skills, or even class, although you can certainly make suggestions.
Most importantly, nowhere in the feat description does it say that they'll work for free. You have to pay them for all those magic items they're sitting around making, and if they adventure with you they'll expect a fair cut of the loot.
The big advantage of Leadership, and the reason I consider it possibly the best feat in the game, is its ability to create new opportunities and motivation for adventuring. Attaching an NPC to the party that the players actually care about is like GM gold.
The description of leadership does say you attract a "loyal" cohort, so there's only so much they'll push back against your requests.
As far as paying them a fair share of the loot, that's something you as a PC would want to do anyway. That makes them much more effective and useful to you. Give them 1/2 share of the treasure and they'll effectively be 1/2 a character in combat/adventuring/crafting value (worth FAR more than 1 feat in value). Best of all, they cost you no experience since any XP they gain is in addition to what the party gets.
As far as motivation, you don't need leadership as an excuse to attach a NPC to the party. If you as GM want an NPC to adventure with the party, there is absolutely nothing to stop you from doing so. In fact, you have far more flexibility this way since you can replace the NPC whenever it's plot appropriate instead of having to have the same one all the time. Plus while 1 cohort may not cause too many problems in the grand scheme of things, 4 cohorts... Sure, I can attach an NPC to the party. But letting a PC have a cohort makes it a lot more likely that the player will actually care about that NPC. It gives the PC a connection to the world that the player isn't likely to just blow off when the cohort needs help.
Where you see problems I see opportunities. If every PC has leadership, still no problem. I would just create the campaign around the organizations the PCs are leading, and capitalize on the fact that having followers entails responsibilities as well as benefits.
Leadership, like any very useful ability, can be abused by a player if the GM allows it. In general, though, I think the feat is very much a good addition to a PC.
Hmm, I've never had trouble with PCs refusing requests from or interacting with well presented NPCs. Players want an excuse to adventure just as much as GMs do.
The problem with every PC having a cohort is that it just bogs the game down. 4-5 PCs can run fairly smoothly, but 8-10 takes more than twice as long, especially since you have to increase the CR of any encounter to compensate for the party's increased power level. Especially once you throw in animal companions, eidolons, familiars, mounts, summons, etc from both sides.
Actually, I find that combat between small (or even large) armies is pretty easy to handle. If there are too many minor characters to handle individually, just combine them into units and use the mass combat rules from UC.
Usually, however, it's not so much a matter of increasing the CR of the encounters as changing their type. If every character has a bunch of followers, then the PCs should be spending much more time dealing with organizational problems than fighting monsters. They're no longer free-wheeling adventures, but the founders of a martial arts academy, or a wizard's college, or a thieves' guild, or whatever it is they're doing with all those loyal followers.
That means more of a focus on role-playing and problem solving, rather than fighting. PCs start becoming noticed in the world. They have more influence over events, but at the same time they're less free to solve problems with sword and spell - and fewer of their problems can be solved that way even if they are willing. Rather than worry about CR, I'd use story awards for this kind of interaction since the challenges are not easily quantifiable in terms of opponent hit dice. After all, if the PCs have to negotiate with the baron for permission to do something, what difference does it make if he's 20th level or 1st? Either way they can't win by fighting.
One good way to tackle a campaign of this sort is to mine the UC Downtime section for ideas and instead of rolling dice to resolve events, play them out as adventures.
The only time I see a problem is if a player who chooses the feat is just looking for some extra combat power and doesn't want to deal with having actual people depend upon them. But if that's their attitude, then those loyal cohorts and followers aren't going to stay loyal for very long.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Leadership is the greatest gift you can give your GM, second to a bottle of Lagavulin. Leadership creates game investment. Investment increases game enjoyment and complexity.
-Ben.
terraleon wrote: Leadership is the greatest gift you can give your GM, second to a bottle of Lagavulin. Leadership creates game investment. Investment increases game enjoyment and complexity.
-Ben.
I'd actually prefer a case of Jeremiah Red, but otherwise I agree.
JoeJ wrote: Actually, I find that combat between small (or even large) armies is pretty easy to handle. If there are too many minor characters to handle individually, just combine them into units and use the mass combat rules from UC. The trouble is that no PC or cohort can be considered a minor character. Even eidolons, animal followers, and most summons are fairly unique and can't be grouped into units. This leads to mind numbingly long combats against appropriate CR encounters. Imagine an adventuring group with Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Cleric, and Summoner with their cohorts, a Bard, Ranger, Magus, Cavalier, and Oracle. That's 10 characters, 2 animal companions, an eidolon, 2 mounts, and whatever else the spellcasters summon. And their opponents might be something like an Ice Devil, 3 barbed devils, and 6 bearded devils.
JoeJ wrote:
Usually, however, it's not so much a matter of increasing the CR of the encounters as changing their type. If every character has a bunch of followers, then the PCs should be spending much more time dealing with organizational problems than fighting monsters. They're no longer free-wheeling adventures, but the founders of a martial arts academy, or a wizard's college, or a thieves' guild, or whatever it is they're doing with all those loyal followers.
That means more of a focus on role-playing and problem solving, rather than fighting. PCs start becoming noticed in the world. They have more influence over events, but at the same time they're less free to solve problems with sword and spell - and fewer of their problems can be solved that way even if they are willing. Rather than worry about CR, I'd use story awards for this kind of interaction since the challenges are not easily quantifiable in terms of opponent hit dice. After all, if the PCs have to negotiate with the baron for permission to do something, what difference does it make if he's 20th level or 1st? Either way they can't win by fighting.
One good way to tackle a campaign of this sort is to mine the UC Downtime section for ideas and instead of rolling dice to resolve events, play them out as adventures.
The only time I see a problem is if a player who chooses the feat is just looking for some extra combat power and doesn't want to deal with having actual people depend upon them. But if that's their attitude, then those loyal cohorts and followers aren't going to stay loyal for very long.
You may be happy with very little combat, but that kinda defeats the purpose of using Pathfinder as your game engine. The core of the system is a VERY heavy emphasis on combat. The vast majority of the way a typical character advances is through combat and the typical module and adventure path has tons of it.
You may be happier with many other excellent RPG systems out there that emphasize the roleplaying aspects of gameplay more.
Celanian wrote: The trouble is that no PC or cohort can be considered a minor character. Even eidolons, animal followers, and most summons are fairly unique and can't be grouped into units. This leads to mind numbingly long combats against appropriate CR encounters. Imagine an adventuring group with Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Cleric, and Summoner with their cohorts, a Bard, Ranger, Magus, Cavalier, and Oracle. That's 10 characters, 2 animal companions, an eidolon, 2 mounts, and whatever else the spellcasters summon. And their opponents might be something like an Ice Devil, 3 barbed devils, and 6 bearded devils. The adventuring group is run by the players, so not a big problem. And that's only 10 devils. I've run battles with that many or more opponents many times.
Quote: You may be happy with very little combat, but that kinda defeats the purpose of using Pathfinder as your game engine. The core of the system is a VERY heavy emphasis on combat. The vast majority of the way a typical character advances is through combat and the typical module and adventure path has tons of it.
You may be happier with many other excellent RPG systems out there that emphasize the roleplaying aspects of gameplay more.
I don't see anywhere in the CRB where it says, "you shouldn't buy this book if you enjoy roleplaying." In fact, my copy says, "Roleplaying Game" right on the front cover. The game has a lot more flexibility than you give it credit for. There isn't One True Way that everybody has to play.
Celanian wrote: The trouble is that no PC or cohort can be considered a minor character. Even eidolons, animal followers, and most summons are fairly unique and can't be grouped into units. This leads to mind numbingly long combats against appropriate CR encounters. Imagine an adventuring group with Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Cleric, and Summoner with their cohorts, a Bard, Ranger, Magus, Cavalier, and Oracle. That's 10 characters, 2 animal companions, an eidolon, 2 mounts, and whatever else the spellcasters summon. And their opponents might be something like an Ice Devil, 3 barbed devils, and 6 bearded devils. This doesn't have to result in the long, dragged out, dull and dreary combats that are frequently described on messageboards though.
Naturally not everyone will have the inclination to finetune their tableplay to such a level (nor will everyone wish to immerse themselves sufficiently into the scene to make what time it does take exciting and evocative) but it's entirely possible to have such a combat play out with each entire round (the passage of everybody's turn, team PCs and team Opposition alike) taking less than 10 minutes.
Especially in the case of characters focused on pets/summons, a GM really should do whatever they can to inspire the player to master their material to the point that they can blaze through their turn, rather than drag it out deciding what to summon/what to have their creatures do, etc.
(I say all this from experience playing a Malconvoker, wherein it was frequent for me to have a Planar Bound Evil Outsider or two working for me, summoning 2-6 monsters per combat, and took the least table time at the table amidst somewhat experienced company.)
If lots of cohorts bogs down combat, then limit the extent to which cohorts can take part in combat.
Depending on the campaign and the cohorts, you can use one or more of:
- Cohorts who play simple roles in combat.
- Cohorts who add specific skill sets like tracking or trapfinding but sit out combat.
- Cohorts who only attend adventures that fit their expertise.
- Cohorts who do things off-scene like protect the PCs' base, research adventure hooks, conduct diplomacy with potential allies or employers, or craft.
Weirdo wrote: If lots of cohorts bogs down combat, then limit the extent to which cohorts can take part in combat.
Depending on the campaign and the cohorts, you can use one or more of:
- Cohorts who play simple roles in combat.
- Cohorts who add specific skill sets like tracking or trapfinding but sit out combat.
- Cohorts who only attend adventures that fit their expertise.
- Cohorts who do things off-scene like protect the PCs' base, research adventure hooks, conduct diplomacy with potential allies or employers, or craft.
For an interesting one-off change, you could also have the cohorts go on an adventure by themselves and leave the main characters back at the base.
Cohorts and companions can bring a lot to the player.
For example, my player's group really suffered from not having any healing present. He is a fighter, and could use it a lot.
After a dozen sessions, he finally figured out what the problem was with his friend the (npc) sorcerer. It turned out he was not a fire sorcerer, but flame oracle. He has taken him in, and stuck him on his feat he had already spent.
Now, the oracle is an NPC and as such, I control him. I chose the feats, the spells, the stats, and everything. Ofc the fighter tries to influence his selection, but we do it by roleplaying. If the oracle trains regularly with the fighter, he can/will pick up weapon focus or toughness for example.
My fighter sometimes ORDERS the oracle to stay behind, so he doesn't get killed in a dangerous situation. The IC reaction is amazing, even though OOC it would be so muich easier if the 'healer' would be IN the dungeon encounter with them :p
((If the cohort dies, the feat is gone. I play hard ball, but my players wouldn't want it any other way.. I think :P ))
JoeJ wrote:
The adventuring group is run by the players, so not a big problem. And that's only 10 devils. I've run battles with that many or more opponents many times.
Except when combats take hours to resolve.
Quote:
I don't see anywhere in the CRB where it says, "you shouldn't buy this book if you enjoy roleplaying." In fact, my copy says, "Roleplaying Game" right on the front cover. The game has a lot more flexibility than you give it credit for. There isn't One True Way that everybody has to play.
Pretty much all of their modules and adventure paths have a huge emphasis on combat as well as the majority of their game mechanics. I'd say that's a pretty good sign that combat is intended by the designers to be the core of the system.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Naturally not everyone will have the inclination to finetune their tableplay to such a level (nor will everyone wish to immerse themselves sufficiently into the scene to make what time it does take exciting and evocative) but it's entirely possible to have such a combat play out with each entire round (the passage of everybody's turn, team PCs and team Opposition alike) taking less than 10 minutes. Let's do the math. In the situation I mentioned, there are 15 PC controlled miniatures and 10 GM controlled miniatures. Most of them have complex spell-like or caster abilities (with the intellect to use them to their best advantage) and you can probably expect both sides to do some summoning. Let's say 30 total miniatures. 10 minutes is 600 seconds, so you're saying it's possible to have each person complete their turn in about 20 seconds at mid to high levels. That's not my experience of Pathfinder. Even at low levels, players tend to take more than 20 seconds to resolve their turns.
Even if combat was that fast, a smaller party would resolve combat even quicker.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Celanian wrote: Let's do the math. In the situation I mentioned, there are 15 PC controlled miniatures and 10 GM controlled miniatures. Most of them have complex spell-like or caster abilities (with the intellect to use them to their best advantage) and you can probably expect both sides to do some summoning. Let's say 30 total miniatures. 10 minutes is 600 seconds, so you're saying it's possible to have each person complete their turn in about 20 seconds at mid to high levels. That's not my experience of Pathfinder. Even at low levels, players tend to take more than 20 seconds to resolve their turns.
Even if combat was that fast, a smaller party would resolve combat even quicker.
How long a combat turn takes is going to a vary a lot depending on the system mastery and general planning skill of players and GM at the table. Personally, I've had a lot more trouble with games being slowed down by that one guy who needs five minutes to decide on his next action every round than I have with cohorts or minions.
Celanian wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote:
Naturally not everyone will have the inclination to finetune their tableplay to such a level (nor will everyone wish to immerse themselves sufficiently into the scene to make what time it does take exciting and evocative) but it's entirely possible to have such a combat play out with each entire round (the passage of everybody's turn, team PCs and team Opposition alike) taking less than 10 minutes. Let's do the math. In the situation I mentioned, there are 15 PC controlled miniatures and 10 GM controlled miniatures. Most of them have complex spell-like or caster abilities (with the intellect to use them to their best advantage) and you can probably expect both sides to do some summoning. Let's say 30 total miniatures. 10 minutes is 600 seconds, so you're saying it's possible to have each person complete their turn in about 20 seconds at mid to high levels.
First off, your math is wrong. I believe you mean to say that its possible to have each character's turn completed in about 20 seconds? More people creates more confusion/more time burned.
Secondly, yes. It's easily possible to spend roughly 20 seconds per character, especially when a third of them are in the hands of the GM.
Quote: That's not my experience of Pathfinder. Even at low levels, players tend to take more than 20 seconds to resolve their turns. It hasn't been most people's experience. I haven't been at a table where the whole group achieved those levels of fluid play either. I was just expressing the possibility.
Quote: Even if combat was that fast, a smaller party would resolve combat even quicker. This is true, but is it relevant?
Chengar Qordath wrote:
How long a combat turn takes is going to a vary a lot depending on the system mastery and general planning skill of players and GM at the table. Personally, I've had a lot more trouble with games being slowed down by that one guy who needs five minutes to decide on his next action every round than I have with cohorts or minions.
Agreed. The problem is that the guy who takes 5 minutes to decide on an action is also the guy who takes 5 minutes to decide on his cohort's action as well.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
First off, your math is wrong. I believe you mean to say that its possible to have each character's turn completed in about 20 seconds? More people creates more confusion/more time burned.
Secondly, yes. It's easily possible to spend roughly 20 seconds per character, especially when a third of them are in the hands of the GM.
How is my math wrong? 600 seconds divided by 30 entities who are entitled to actions leaves 20 secs per entity to act.
20 secs per character at mid to high levels seems impossible to me, especially if many/most of them have spell like abilities or actual caster levels.
Celanian wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote:
First off, your math is wrong. I believe you mean to say that its possible to have each character's turn completed in about 20 seconds? More people creates more confusion/more time burned.
Secondly, yes. It's easily possible to spend roughly 20 seconds per character, especially when a third of them are in the hands of the GM.
How is my math wrong? 600 seconds divided by 30 entities who are entitled to actions leaves 20 secs per entity to act.
20 secs per character at mid to high levels seems impossible to me, especially if many/most of them have spell like abilities or actual caster levels. So you did mean 20 seconds per character. That, I agreed with. You had said '20 seconds per person' which seemed to me to be saying '20 seconds per person at the table.'
As per the time it takes in high level play, casters/SLA's take the LEAST time, barring arguments about how spells function/interact. It's the full attack routines which CAN take a long time, but a quick player will have multiple d20's of different colors (each color represents a different attack bonus) and matching damage dice. Toss them all at once, tally the hits, then the damage for each hit. Wham bam thank you ma'am.
Sure, the smaller party would resolve combat quicker, but are they having more fun?
kyrt-ryder wrote: As per the time it takes in high level play, casters/SLA's take the LEAST time, barring arguments about how spells function/interact. It's the full attack routines which CAN take a long time, but a quick player will have multiple d20's of different colors (each color represents a different attack bonus) and matching damage dice. Toss them all at once, tally the hits, then the damage for each hit. Wham bam thank you ma'am. Yup, saves ever so much time for my monk.
Celanian wrote: The problem is that the guy who takes 5 minutes to decide on an action is also the guy who takes 5 minutes to decide on his cohort's action as well. Well if that guy is a problem, then tell him to speed up, let someone else decide his cohort's action, or make a simpler cohort.
Celanian wrote: Except when combats take hours to resolve.
They usually don't take anywhere near that long. But if they do occasionally, so what? I've never once been unable to finish a battle before the end of the session.
Celanian wrote: Pretty much all of their modules and adventure paths have a huge emphasis on combat as well as the majority of their game mechanics. I'd say that's a pretty good sign that combat is intended by the designers to be the core of the system. I don't know what's in the modules, because I don't use them. Combat rules take up only 26 pages in the CRB, but in any case the amount of rules isn't an indication of how much combat there is "supposed" to be but a function of the complexity of handling it when it occurs.
Celanian wrote: Even if combat was that fast, a smaller party would resolve combat even quicker. So? Is combat a chore that you have to get through to get to the fun parts? If that's the case, simply have it happen less often. There's no requirement that a campaign have any combat at all (although fighter might not be the best class for that sort of campaign).
You can get a bigger party with just a Master summoner!
But yes, large parties require some reasonable table guidelines. Yes, you could have all the players with a mount/cohort/eidolon/combat familiar/companion. But it's not likely.
You could also have 5 summoners.
Now at our table we only allow two "actives' per Player. PC + Cohort, PC+ companion, etc. Familiars that don't engage in combat or mounts that mostly act as transportation, or to aid in a charge, don't count. Generally, one summoned creature per side at a time.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
So you did mean 20 seconds per character. That, I agreed with. You had said '20 seconds per person' which seemed to me to be saying '20 seconds per person at the table.'
As per the time it takes in high level play, casters/SLA's take the LEAST time, barring arguments about how spells function/interact. It's the full attack routines which CAN take a long time, but a quick player will have multiple d20's of different colors (each color represents a different attack bonus) and matching damage dice. Toss them all at once, tally the hits, then the damage for each hit. Wham bam thank you ma'am.
You also have to realize that there are 30 miniatures at the table. Each of them have to be moved, positioned to their most effective square, resolve attacks of opportunity, determine flanking bonuses etc. And with spells, you have to consider the following. Buffs have to have everyone write down the bonuses on their sheet and how long it lasts. Lingering effects have to be marked down on the board and determine who is affected. Spells cast on enemies have to make a SR check per enemy and then they make saving throws and then finally you have to record any effects that happen to them. And then you have to track exactly which effects are dispelled when dispel magic is cast. For full attacks, you generally roll one attack at a time since there's less wastage that way. You don't want to attack the bearded devil 3 times when the first attack might just kill him and you can save the next 2 for his buddy.
If you have a video of a large PC vs enemy fight with 20+ total mid to high level entities that lasts 20 secs or less per entity, please point me to the video. I may learn something.
JoeJ wrote:
I don't know what's in the modules, because I don't use them. Combat rules take up only 26 pages in the CRB, but in any case the amount of rules isn't an indication of how much combat there is "supposed" to be but a function of the complexity of handling it when it occurs.
If you don't know what's in the modules or use them, then perhaps it might be hard for you to understand how much combat there is in an adventure that reflects how the designers think the game is to be played among their target audience.
DrDeth wrote:
You can get a bigger party with just a Master summoner!
But yes, large parties require some reasonable table guidelines. Yes, you could have all the players with a mount/cohort/eidolon/combat familiar/companion. But it's not likely.
You could also have 5 summoners.
Now at our table we only allow two "actives' per Player. PC + Cohort, PC+ companion, etc. Familiars that don't engage in combat or mounts that mostly act as transportation, or to aid in a charge, don't count. Generally, one summoned creature per side at a time.
The reasonable table guideline I go with is no Leadership feat. Nice and simple and if you want more NPCs to interact with, you can always have a group cohort or party NPC that you can throw in. There is no reason why a party NPC should be any less interesting than a cohort if role played properly.
Celanian wrote: The reasonable table guideline I go with is no Leadership feat. But you allow Master Summoners?!? One, just one- of those can fill the table quicker than 4 PC's with Cohorts rcvd from Leadership.
DrDeth wrote:
But you allow Master Summoners?!? One, just one- of those can fill the table quicker than 4 PC's with Cohorts rcvd from Leadership.
Nobody has played one yet. But I would probably not allow it.
As an aside, it would get pretty ugly if you had 5 Master Summoners with 5 Master Summoner cohorts...
Celanian wrote: You also have to realize that there are 30 miniatures at the table. Each of them have to be moved, positioned to their most effective square Piece of cake. Takes about 2 seconds
Quote: resolve attacks of opportunity Takes another 2-4 seconds. You don't f&%* with AoO's in order, anybody who got an AoO makes their rolls at the same time as a result of the movement. If the person who moved gets dropped before they reached someone, that AoO didn't happen (and doesn't cost the person who didn't use it)
Quote: determine flanking bonuses That's +2, if you can't add 2 to your attack bonus on the top of your head you should probably pick up a first grade arithmetic book and start practicing.
Quote: And with spells, you have to consider the following. Buffs have to have everyone write down the bonuses on their sheet and how long it lasts. You write down the bonuses on your sheet? That's just going to f$$~ up your sheet. Try keeping a notepad with you during play, and write down any changes to your character as they happen. Takes a few seconds tops. Quote: Lingering effects have to be marked down on the board and determine who is affected. No they don't. Use your mind and memory and- if need be- pen and paper. Stay away from the board except when moving miniatures.
Quote: Spells cast on enemies have to make a SR check per enemy and then they make saving throws and then finally you have to record any effects that happen to them. Speaking as a GM, I do this all at the same time. Takes me a few seconds tops, for every miniature on the board.
Quote: And then you have to track exactly which effects are dispelled when dispel magic is cast. This is a problem for those whose effects were dispelled. If it's the Opposition, I clear them off, if its a PC then they do. Takes almost no time at all.
Quote: For full attacks, you generally roll one attack at a time since there's less wastage that way. You don't want to attack the bearded devil 3 times when the first attack might just kill him and you can save the next 2 for his buddy. That's why each attack is color coded. If you have leftover attacks after the first target is killed, you direct them at additional targets as desired. The Attack Result is compared vs the new target's AC, and the damage which was already rolled is applied.
Quote: If you have a video of a large PC vs enemy fight with 20+ total mid to high level entities that lasts 20 secs or less per entity, please point me to the video. I may learn something. Sorry, I don't have a video of this. I'm speaking from personal experience, not from watching things online.
EDIT: I will also note that I have since moved on to playing via battlefield of the mind, which costs a great deal of time to set up the scene (and some time clarifying it with people who weren't paying enough attention at first) but does cut out the miniature handling time.
Celanian wrote: For full attacks, you generally roll one attack at a time since there's less wastage that way. You don't want to attack the bearded devil 3 times when the first attack might just kill him and you can save the next 2 for his buddy. As kyrt-ryder pointed out, you just say before you roll "I attack this guy until he drops, then direct the rest of the attacks to that guy." And roll damage at the same time as your to-hits so you can deal with each attack as a distinct unit.
Say you have three attacks, rolled with red, orange, and yellow dice:
Red attack: 28 to hit, 20 damage
Orange attack: 21 to hit, 14 damage
Yellow attack: 25 to hit, 35 damage
If your first opponent has an AC of less than 28 and less than 20 hp, you drop him and direct your orange and yellow attacks to your second target. If not, your orange and possibly yellow attacks are also directed at the first opponent.
DrDeth wrote: Now at our table we only allow two "actives' per Player. PC + Cohort, PC+ companion, etc. Familiars that don't engage in combat or mounts that mostly act as transportation, or to aid in a charge, don't count. Generally, one summoned creature per side at a time. That's a good rule. Simple, and treats all extra bodies evenly regardless of source rather than just excluding the most obvious sources of extra bodies.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Celanian wrote: You also have to realize that there are 30 miniatures at the table. Each of them have to be moved, positioned to their most effective square Piece of cake. Takes about 2 seconds I find this VERY hard to believe. 2 seconds to move up to however many squares the characters are entitled to and give ample time for the opponents to respond and declare AoOs?
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quote: resolve attacks of opportunity Takes another 2-4 seconds. You don't f+!+ with AoO's in order, anybody who got an AoO makes their rolls at the same time as a result of the movement. If the person who moved gets dropped before they reached someone, that AoO didn't happen (and doesn't cost the person who didn't use it)
This is even harder to believe. While moving the figure, the character who declares the AoO has to declare the attack, determine bonuses (both sides might have feats or powers that modify the attack), roll the dice (which can take 2-4 secs by itself), roll damage, record the damage, resolve any additional effects of the AoO such as poison, trip, or grapple. And then remember that this can occur several times during the move.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quote: determine flanking bonuses That's +2, if you can't add 2 to your attack bonus on the top of your head you should probably pick up a first grade arithmetic book and start practicing.
This is just another modifier that has to be added in to the attack. And different classes have different benefits from flanking.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quote: And with spells, you have to consider the following. Buffs have to have everyone write down the bonuses on their sheet and how long it lasts. You write down the bonuses on your sheet? That's just going to f@#$ up your sheet. Try keeping a notepad with you during play, and write down any changes to your character as they happen. Takes a few seconds tops.
Who cares if the character sheet is f@#$ up? We reprint sheets before each session anyway. And having all the modifiers written down helps greatly in determining all the numbers accurately.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quote: Lingering effects have to be marked down on the board and determine who is affected. No they don't. Use your mind and memory and- if need be- pen and paper. Stay away from the board except when moving miniatures.
Yes they do. When you can have several webs, pits, walls, etc on the field which may overlap, it's VITAL to have it marked down on the map. It's very easy to miss something if you try to wing it.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quote: Spells cast on enemies have to make a SR check per enemy and then they make saving throws and then finally you have to record any effects that happen to them. Speaking as a GM, I do this all at the same time. Takes me a few seconds tops, for every miniature on the board.
Really? A 11th level Wizard casts chain lightning at the devils and you can roll 10 SR checks, 10 Saves, 11d6 damage, and record everything down in a few seconds tops? Worse would be a spell that has different effects or damage dice that varies depending on what the target is.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quote: And then you have to track exactly which effects are dispelled when dispel magic is cast. This is a problem for those whose effects were dispelled. If it's the Opposition, I clear them off, if its a PC then they do. Takes almost no time at all.
Really? Almost no time? When you actually have to make a roll and compare it to buffs from potentially several different caster levels potentially from an area if it's the greater variety? And then properly record exactly which buff was removed and adjust the target's bonuses accordingly?
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quote: Sorry, I don't have a video of this. I'm speaking from personal experience, not from watching things online.
EDIT: I will also note that I have since moved on to playing via battlefield of the mind, which costs a great deal of time to set up the scene (and some time clarifying it with people who weren't paying enough attention at first) but does cut out the miniature handling time.
Yeah, it sounded like you have very little actual experience running a real battle with miniatures and a board. You can definitely save time by winging it, but you'll almost certainly get a lot of stuff wrong.
Celanian wrote: JoeJ wrote: I don't know what's in the modules, because I don't use them. Combat rules take up only 26 pages in the CRB, but in any case the amount of rules isn't an indication of how much combat there is "supposed" to be but a function of the complexity of handling it when it occurs. If you don't know what's in the modules or use them, then perhaps it might be hard for you to understand how much combat there is in an adventure that reflects how the designers think the game is to be played among their target audience.
The target audience for a published adventure is not the same as the target audience for the core game. I claim that the "right" amount of combat in any Pathfinder adventure is exactly as much as the group enjoys, neither more nor less. I'll bet you can find any official representative of Paizo who'll say that's incorrect.
Also, you still haven't explained why a short battle that everybody enjoys is better than a long battle that everybody enjoys.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm a bit late to the scene for this discussion but I'm going to toss this out there as someone who actually does allow the Leadership feat in my games (yep, I do, I'm a bad GM). However, it's most definitely broken by comparison to feats.
Leadership grants you...
1. 1/2 your level -2 extra feats, rounded down. That is a 12th level cohort has a 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th level feat of their own.
2. The class features of any class of your level -2.
3. The extra action economy of an entirely new team member.
4. An assortment of downtime assistants in the form of followers.
5. A relatively expendable party member, in the sense that your leadership score doesn't take a hit if you're not directly responsible for your cohort's death, which means that if you have a meatshield cohort and he or she snuffs it, the main characters aren't down a guy and you can get another cohort if you can't afford to have yours raised.
That's a lot for one feat. That's not even counting the fact that you can use it to really maximize on things like item creation and the like. So yes, Leadership is really quite broken by comparison to other feats.
That said, it's one of the few "really quite broken" things that I do allow in my games without much modification. I'm generally happy to work with players to get a cohort that they like and/or enjoy, and I often suggest it if the player wants some sort of unusual sidekick, such as a unicorn mount or succubus BFF.
JoeJ wrote:
The target audience for a published adventure is not the same as the target audience for the core game. I claim that the "right" amount of combat in any Pathfinder adventure is exactly as much as the group enjoys, neither more nor less. I'll bet you can find any official representative of Paizo who'll say that's incorrect.
You can claim whatever you want. However what Paizo actually publishes and sells is what they think is in demand. If the demand was there for adventures with very little combat and almost completely roleplay, you can bet Paizo would've already created a line to cater to that desire.
JoeJ wrote:
Also, you still haven't explained why a short battle that everybody enjoys is better than a long battle that everybody enjoys.
When did I EVER say that? Please point out which post I said that.
Celanian wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Celanian wrote: You also have to realize that there are 30 miniatures at the table. Each of them have to be moved, positioned to their most effective square Piece of cake. Takes about 2 seconds I find this VERY hard to believe. 2 seconds to move up to however many squares the characters are entitled to and give ample time for the opponents to respond and declare AoOs? How long does it take you to move a chess piece if you've already decided where to move it to?
A player needs to know what he's doing BEFORE his turn starts.
Quote: kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quote: resolve attacks of opportunity Takes another 2-4 seconds. You don't f+!+ with AoO's in order, anybody who got an AoO makes their rolls at the same time as a result of the movement. If the person who moved gets dropped before they reached someone, that AoO didn't happen (and doesn't cost the person who didn't use it)
This is even harder to believe. While moving the figure, the character who declares the AoO has to declare the attack, determine bonuses (both sides might have feats or powers that modify the attack), roll the dice (which can take 2-4 secs by itself), roll damage, record the damage, resolve any additional effects of the AoO such as poison, trip, or grapple. And then remember that this can occur several times during the move.
Here we go again. 'Determine bonuses.' All bonuses should be sorted and done before the movement ever takes place. You get your s~%* straightened out and then it moves like clockwork.
As a brief example: Lets say I have a Fighter whose normal AC is 34, who has the Mobility Feat, and is moving out of flanking. The enemies have to hit an effective AC of 36 (34+4 from Mobility-2 from flanking.) They both declare their rolls while I move my piece from my starting point to my ending point. If that passes through the threatened area of another enemy, he makes his AoO roll at the exact same time.
The results are totaled. Every hit is applied in the order it was made (in the case of the flanking opponents I go with whomever has the highest initiative order though this will vary between tables) and if said Fighter drops before he reaches another AoO that AoO didn't happen.
This all happens in the span of 4-6 seconds (2 seconds for my movement+ another 2-4 for accounting for the AoOs)
Quote: kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quote: determine flanking bonuses That's +2, if you can't add 2 to your attack bonus on the top of your head you should probably pick up a first grade arithmetic book and start practicing.
This is just another modifier that has to be added in to the attack. And different classes have different benefits from flanking.
And they should know what their different benefit from flanking is. Know thyself, know thine opponent, and victory will be thine.
Point is, everything should be clearly calculated beforehand, and when things change you just make the necessary minor adjustments swiftly. This isn't longhand division we're dealing with.
Quote: kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quote: And with spells, you have to consider the following. Buffs have to have everyone write down the bonuses on their sheet and how long it lasts. You write down the bonuses on your sheet? That's just going to f@#$ up your sheet. Try keeping a notepad with you during play, and write down any changes to your character as they happen. Takes a few seconds tops.
Who cares if the character sheet is f@#$ up? We reprint sheets before each session anyway. And having all the modifiers written down helps greatly in determining all the numbers accurately.
I do. The more f*#@ed up a sheet gets the more difficult it becomes to clearly read it. I also prefer to only change the sheet at levelup.
Having all the numbers written down is important, but this is why I advocate keeping clean paper on hand to notate changes.
Quote: Lingering effects have to be marked down on the board and determine who is affected.Kyrt-ryder wrote: No they don't. Use your mind and memory and- if need be- pen and paper. Stay away from the board except when moving miniatures. Quote: Yes they do. When you can have several webs, pits, walls, etc on the field which may overlap, it's VITAL to have it marked down on the map. It's very easy to miss something if you try to wing it. In my days before transitioning to Battlefield of the Mind, I played on a simple battlemat and Miniatures. Made zero changes to the map itself, merely noted changes to the combat environment on a notebook paper. The goal was always to incorporate the changes to the scene in everybody's heads. (This was necessary on my part, because I SUCK at drawing and would take forever to produce crap if I tried going with the freehand style I've seen some people discuss on the boards.)
Quote: Spells cast on enemies have to make a SR check per enemy and then they make saving throws and then finally you have to record any effects that happen to them.Kyrt-Ryder wrote: Speaking as a GM, I do this all at the same time. Takes me a few seconds tops, for every miniature on the board. Quote: Really? A 11th level Wizard casts chain lightning at the devils and you can roll 10 SR checks, 10 Saves, 11d6 damage, and record everything down in a few seconds tops? Worse would be a spell that has different effects or damage dice that varies depending on what the target is. How long do you think it takes me to toss multiple d20's (likely isolated into separate sections of the table to keep them isolated by group) and compare the results? "This group here is the Top Devils with +7, Pass, fail, pass, pass, fail. This group over here represents the underling Devils, Fail, Pass, Fail, Fail, Pass, Fail, Pass, Fail, Fail" *notes the damage taken by each of them before pointing to the table* "This one and this one die, the rest have either been wounded to some extent or shrugged it off entirely with their Spell Resistance. NEXT"
I'd say I average around 4-8 seconds for such an event.
Quote: Dispel Magic Stuff This post is cluttered as f&!* already, not gonna bother with this one.
Quote: Kyrtryder wrote: Sorry, I don't have a video of this. I'm speaking from personal experience, not from watching things online.
EDIT: I will also note that I have since moved on to playing via battlefield of the mind, which costs a great deal of time to set up the scene (and some time clarifying it with people who weren't paying enough attention at first) but does cut out the miniature handling time.
Yeah, it sounded like you have very little actual experience running a real battle with miniatures and a board. You can definitely save time by winging it, but you'll almost certainly get a lot of stuff wrong.
What part of "I'm speaking from personal experience" sounds like I have very little actual experience?
I spent roughly one year of heavy DMing (and another year of assistant DMing) using a battlemat, mostly at mid to high levels.
I've moved on from the battlemat because I prefer to adventure in my mind rather than play with figurines, but I do have a decent amount of experience with miniature combat.
Celanian wrote: You can claim whatever you want. However what Paizo actually publishes and sells is what they think is in demand. If the demand was there for adventures with very little combat and almost completely roleplay, you can bet Paizo would've already created a line to cater to that desire. So your argument is that my group shouldn't be playing adventures that Paizo doesn't sell? Everything in the rules about creating your own campaign were just put there to pad the books, I suppose?
Again, show me a direct quote from somebody official that I'm doing it wrong as a GM if I tailor the amount of combat to what my group enjoys.
Celanian wrote: JoeJ wrote: Also, you still haven't explained why a short battle that everybody enjoys is better than a long battle that everybody enjoys.
When did I EVER say that? Please point out which post I said that.
When I wrote:
Quote: The adventuring group is run by the players, so not a big problem. And that's only 10 devils. I've run battles with that many or more opponents many times. And your response was:
Quote: Except when combats take hours to resolve. If you weren't saying that a long battle is automatically a bad thing, what did you mean by "except"?
kyrt-ryder wrote:
How long does it take you to move a chess piece if you've already decided where to move it to?
A player needs to know what he's doing BEFORE his turn starts.
More than 2 seconds if I have to move every square in between and give every potential opponent a chance to announce an AoO. Unlike chess, a pathfinder move can be interrupted. Also chess pieces have exactly one way to go from point A to point B whereas pathfinder pieces have multiple ways.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Here we go again. 'Determine bonuses.' All bonuses should be sorted and done before the movement ever takes place. You get your s!+& straightened out and then it moves like clockwork.
As a brief example: Lets say I have a Fighter whose normal AC is 34, who has the Mobility Feat, and is moving out of flanking. The enemies have to hit an effective AC of 36 (34+4 from Mobility-2 from flanking.) They both declare their rolls while I move my piece from my starting point to my ending point. If that passes through the threatened area of another enemy, he makes his AoO roll at the exact same time.
The results are totaled. Every hit is applied in the order it was made (in the case of the flanking opponents I go with whomever has the highest initiative order though this will vary between tables) and if said Fighter drops before he reaches another AoO that AoO didn't happen.
This all happens in the span of 4-6 seconds (2 seconds for my movement+ another 2-4 for accounting for the AoOs)
What if the fighter takes one AoO and then decides he's taken too much damage and doesn't want to trigger another? Let's say fighter has 50 hp to start and moves through 3 AoO. First one gets a crit and hits him for 40 damage. Fighter doesn't want to move any further, but according to your system, he'd be dead since all the AoOs are made at the same time and number 2 and 3 would kill him and he can't abort his move. If he can abort his move, that would be even more problematic since he can see the AoOs that are downstream and know whether he's going to be hit or not.
And I'm very skeptical of AoOs being resolved in 2-4 secs to begin with.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
In my days before transitioning to Battlefield of the Mind, I played on a simple battlemat and Miniatures. Made zero changes to the map itself, merely noted changes to the combat environment on a notebook paper. The goal was always to incorporate the changes to the scene in everybody's heads. (This was necessary on my part, because I SUCK at drawing and would take forever to produce crap if I tried going with the freehand style I've seen some people discuss on the boards.)
It takes longer to run the combat if you don't draw it out. If someone has to flip between the map and notebook before each move and determine where the difficult terrain and walls are, it's significantly longer than if you just drew it on the map in the first place.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
How long do you think it takes me to toss multiple d20's (likely isolated into separate sections of the table to keep them isolated by group) and compare the results? "This group here is the Top Devils with +7, Pass, fail, pass, pass, fail. This group over here represents the underling Devils, Fail, Pass, Fail, Fail, Pass, Fail, Pass, Fail, Fail" *notes the damage taken by each of them before pointing to the table* "This one and this one die, the rest have either been wounded to some extent or shrugged it off entirely with their Spell Resistance. NEXT"
I'd say I average around 4-8 seconds for such an event.
I'm going to test this at home tonight. I'm going to get a stopwatch and time myself rolling a chain lightning vs 10 devils with different SRs, reflex saves, and HP. I don't think it's going to be 4-8 seconds.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
What part of "I'm speaking from personal experience" sounds like I have very little actual experience?
I spent roughly one year of heavy DMing (and another year of assistant DMing) using a battlemat, mostly at mid to high levels.
I've moved on from the battlemat because I prefer to adventure in my mind rather than play with figurines, but I do have a decent amount of experience with miniature combat.
A video of you and your players doing a complete game turn with a map would be very instructive. All this talk of 2-4 secs to resolve all AoOs and complete spell effects doesn't seem too likely to me.
I've actually been without a gaming group for a bit over a month, real life can be a b~&%# sometimes.
Beyond that though, there has always been at least one 'that guy' who slowed things down. Like I said, not everyone is willing to get their precision up to that level.
On the stopwatch trial you're giving yourself, you should try to dedicate at least half an hour of practice before you time yourself. I'm pretty sure you can probably get yourself down to 10 seconds if you have the right sort of mindset for that type of GMing.
JoeJ wrote:
So your argument is that my group shouldn't be playing adventures that Paizo doesn't sell? Everything in the rules about creating your own campaign were just put there to pad the books, I suppose?
Again, show me a direct quote from somebody official that I'm doing it wrong as a GM if I tailor the amount of combat to what my group enjoys.
You can do whatever you want in your home campaign. I was simply pointing out that this isn't the 'typical' pathfinder campaign as shown by what Paizo actually publishes and sells.
Celanian wrote:
The trouble is that no PC or cohort can be considered a minor character. Even eidolons, animal followers, and most summons are fairly unique and can't be grouped into units. This leads to mind numbingly long combats against appropriate CR encounters. Imagine an adventuring group with Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Cleric, and Summoner with their cohorts, a Bard, Ranger, Magus, Cavalier, and Oracle. That's 10 characters, 2 animal companions, an eidolon, 2 mounts, and whatever else the spellcasters summon. And their opponents might be something like an Ice Devil, 3 barbed devils, and 6 bearded devils.
JoeJ wrote:
When I wrote:
Quote: The adventuring group is run by the players, so not a big problem. And that's only 10 devils. I've run battles with that many or more opponents many times.
That quote was in response to me saying that having a cohort per PC drastically lengthens a combat and you implying that it didn't lengthen combat that much.
Now that I see your quote again, I see that you weren't actually denying that combat would be lengthened, only that it would be still manageable even if it took a lot of time.
JoeJ wrote:
And your response was:
Quote: Except when combats take hours to resolve. If you weren't saying that a long battle is automatically a bad thing, what did you mean by "except"?
I had the wrong impression of what you said when I made that quote.
JoeJ wrote: So your argument is that my group shouldn't be playing adventures that Paizo doesn't sell? Everything in the rules about creating your own campaign were just put there to pad the books, I suppose?
Again, show me a direct quote from somebody official that I'm doing it wrong as a GM if I tailor the amount of combat to what my group enjoys.
Celanian isn't saying that you're doing it wrong, he's saying that it's not the usual assumption. Everyone plays differently and that can be relevant when you're trying to discuss the effect of a rule on the game. For example, the firearms rules will affect the game differently in a game that has the Gunslinger class vs one that bans it, since the Gunslinger increases the utility of the firearm.
Celanian wrote: JoeJ wrote: Also, you still haven't explained why a short battle that everybody enjoys is better than a long battle that everybody enjoys. When did I EVER say that? Please point out which post I said that.
Your position seems to be that cohorts shouldn't be allowed because they slow down combat. In order to argue that something should be banned because it slows down combat, you should demonstrate the extent to which slowing down combat decreases enjoyment of the game, which is the end result that everyone actually cares about.
It's like saying that you should take a pill that reduces cholesterol, without explaining in what way reducing cholesterol improves your health. People only care about cholesterol levels to the extent that they impact your health.
And like cholesterol, I don't think Leadership can be reduced to simple good or bad. I think it depends a lot on your personal situation and should be assessed and managed on a more case-by-case basis rather than assuming that what's good for one game is good for another. If you're having problems with the power of Leadership, reduce the number of followers or the level of the cohort, make them require more investment to maintain, or limit how much control the PC has over them. If you're having problems with it slowing down combat, then do one of the things I suggested above or deal individually with an indecisive player. If it really doesn't work, then ban it, but just because it can cause problems doesn't mean it's bad all over.
I made a first attempt at using the chain lightning vs the devils.
1) determine SR and Ref saves. O time since it was done pregame.
2) 3-5 seconds. Register that it was a chain lightning. I put a bunch of spells on cards and pulled one randomly. It took about this much time for it to register with me. As GM, I have no way of knowing that the player is going to use this spell so I was simulating the time it takes to register and respond.
3) 4-6 seconds. Pull 3 orange and 1 white D20 and roll and register which ones passed SR. This is for 3 barbed devils and 1 ice devil. Would take at least twice as long if I had to determine which barbed devils failed SR such as if they already had varying degrees of damage.
4) 4-6 seconds. Pull 6D20 and roll and register how many bearded evils fail SR. Would take at least twice as long if it were important to determine which specific devils failed such as if they all already had varying degrees of damage.
5) 4-6 seconds. Roll ref saves for the devils who failed SR in step 3. Again, at least twice as long if it were important which specific ones failed.
6) 4-6 seconds. Roll ref saves for devils who failed SR in step 4. At least twice as long if it were important which specific ones failed.
7) 6-12 seconds. Grab 11d6 and roll and add up all the dice.
8) 5-8 seconds. Determine how much damage each devil took and write it down on paper.
I'm sure I can improve these times with practice, but I doubt very much I'd ever get to 4-8 seconds for everything put together.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Leadership is only as strong as the GM let's it be.
It only gives you the ability to attract followers and cohorts. So to use the feat, you have to run into followers and cohorts. You don't get to create the cohort or followers unless the GM is having you help him/her out.
The feat is not banned in our games, but its usefulness is a complete gamble.
We have four players in my game, plus my totally insanely overpowered GMPC (same rules as PCs, just tweaked better)...
The cleric has an animal companion AND cohort (rogue)
The fighter has a cohort (bard)
The other cleric is a necromancer, and has multiple huge undead critters following around all the time.
Only the ratfolk wizard doesn't travel with a swarm of extras.
I allowed 25 point buy/npc gear for cohort creation, I lucked out, my players didn't abuse it.
Cohort #1 is a doppleganger rogue, and never fights in combat (combat starts, Cleric orders his cohort to run away)-she is used for information gathering in town/scouting and nothing else.
Cohort #2 is a doppleganger bard, never "on-camera"-he is off scene building an empire for his master, posing AS THE PC. It's pretty funny, as the PC has recently learned that his cohort is basically stealing tons of money from him (the power went to his head) but the PC is okay with it, because he has successfully built a kingdom.
Leadership, as a feat, is very powerful, depending on how it is used. If you ask me yes/no if it is broken, of course the answer is yes. It gives so much for a single feat, I don't see how people even debate the point.
Aren't we really asking if it should be allowed? That is up to the DM. I say yes, I am going to tone it down next campaign I run (maybe use torchbearer as a prereq, limit cohorts to non-primary spellcasters etc etc etc).
As a player, I love it. I usually take it. I sometimes abuse it.
My favorite use for it is to make a meatshield fighter cohort for a caster. It just seems logical.
Taking it and making a full caster seems abusive to me.
As for item creation, why do people assume that their cohort would craft stuff at half cost? Nothing in the rules even implies that they would. They will make it, and sell it for full price! You want it at half price, take the feat yourself and put in the time!
Ultimately, the DM has to lay out the groundwork for this feat, as it really has very little published info on how it works.
I think it is broken, but it can be used in a way that makes it fun, rather than frustrating.
I like making the full stat writeups for all my followers, including backstory/bio, gear, location and quirks. It's fun.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
