| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to state first something for want of a better word a disclaimer.
This feat gets a lot of heat attached to it, and I understand that. I noticed one of my players took a trait that gave a bonus to leadership, and since this is the first 100% PF sessions we are running, I told him, I'll allow it but lets talk it out.
He is also a GM, we usually take turns every 6-7 months or so running different sessions. So here is what we came up with, just want to know if you think it's fair.
+ The feat itself remains unchanged.
+ Cohorts will always use Heroic Array.
+ Followers will always use Standard.
+ Player controls mechanics and combat of cohorts, GM controls everything else.
+ Player controls everything else in regards to followers for purposes of skills and mechanics, and combat should they bring it, GM controls everything else.
+ Experience is handled as per feat.
+ Treasure is split between Cohort and Player, but player must be the one to bring it up with the group should they want their Cohort taking a share of the money. GM may also monitor this, if the Cohort seems to be getting neglected.
+ When a player says they want to take Leadership, GM will ask what role do you want this cohort to full-fill and was their a particular race?
+ GM creates NPC from scratch, and shows it to player, and player has 1 veto to have the GM go back and change it, proving the player gives helpful suggestions. Just saying no is not enough. (Example, Player was interested in attracting a ranged archer character, and DM provides monk, but player offers suggestion of fighter because he too is a fighter and is not as disciplined as a monk.)
+ From there, when a cohort levels, the player levels the cohort up.
+ Upon taking the leadership feat, GM is expect to have a cohort ready to go, before the player meets his or her next levels after taking the feat.
+ Should the Cohort die, and is not revived, New cohort is chosen with out regard to player interest, and must be provided by the GM before the player reaches the same spot in her next level. So if Cohort died half way to level 10, GM must provide new cohort before player reaches half way to level 11.
Definitely seems reasonable overall I think. The treasure splitting has always seemed interesting to me. It makes sense for the cohort to get a share of the leaders cut, but at the same time it slows down the WBL of the leader. Although, they are getting a cohort out of the deal, so that may not be a big thing.
The way my DM is going to run Leadership for my PC is I've given him a simple list of wants (prefer female for cohort, either something good at support or guarding (PC is a wizard) and magical if possible to make a bit more sense.) My DM has told me that he's going to create a few and in game my character will have to choose. Which sounds hella fun to me.
Anyways, the fact that they'll get a new cohort if the old one dies seems pretty awesome for the player. Very interesting.
It isn't particularly outlandish. There are too many "what-if" scenarios you cover with the bullets that can probably be handled on the fly anyway, but it otherwise sounds fairly reasonable.
To be fair though, Leadership implies that the PC in question has a cause or faction that he commands, hence why he has followers and a Cohort, so it would be important that you design these NPCs to take an interest in the PCs faction or cause. For example, I doubt a Wizard would join a cause or faction that frowns upon or outright banishes the use of magic, but a Fighter might join the cause simply because he's a sellsword and wants to make ends meet.
That being said, PCs should also make active efforts to contribute to the faction they represent or cause they champion, otherwise their ability as a Leader (and therefore, the abilities of the Leadership feat) grows shallow and the faction or cause will in-turn rebel or mutiny.
Personally, I like how you've handled it.
Believe it or not, but Leadership is the one area my group never gives problems on. Most of the time, they're good via technicality only. Make them responsible for people, like the Leadership feat does, and suddenly those good alignments are entirely justified.
Dot.
|
It's good that you've set up some guidelines and expectations with your players before allowing it. This way players don't feel cheated for expecting something entirely different.
This is how I personally run the Leadership feat:
- The cohort or followers are played by me (the GM) or another player. They can be targeted by monsters and killed if they enter combat as well.
- The feat is earned, not taken. It's strange that a NPC the party has never met decides to put his/her life in danger by following them around (regardless of renown). If I feel that a character has truly befriended an NPC, is 7th level and their cohort level is enough, I as a GM gift them the feat. This has made my players RP the hell out with NPCs as each of them are now their only potential cohorts.
- Nowhere does this feat suggest that the players have any control over what class levels, racial/class traits or weapons the cohorts start out with. Each NPC that I notice begins to have a rapport with the party, gets more fleshed out as they come closer to asking the party if they can join them. The cohort starts with with class levels and options that are true to the NPC. This, of course, does not prevent the players from suggesting to the NPC on what they should improve/change upon, which the NPC may most likely follow.
- I separate the cohorts and the followers side of the feat. They may attract followers or a cohort or both if I see that it's appropriate.
Nowhere does this feat suggest that the players have any control over what class levels, racial/class traits or weapons the cohorts start out with. Each NPC that I notice begins to have a rapport with the party, gets more fleshed out as they come closer to asking the party if they can join them. The cohort starts with with class levels and options that are true to the NPC. This, of course, does not prevent the players from suggesting to the NPC on what they should improve/change upon, which the NPC may most likely follow.
sure they do, they can tell anyone who approaches them who they think won't be of use to the party to go sod off. Also, they can just retrain the cohort if anything, after you've convinced them to change.
|
|
sure they do, they can tell anyone who approaches them who they think won't be of use to the party to go sod off. Also, they can just retrain the cohort if anything, after you've convinced them to change.
Nowhere does this feat suggest that the players have any control over what class levels, racial/class traits or weapons the cohorts start out with. Each NPC that I notice begins to have a rapport with the party, gets more fleshed out as they come closer to asking the party if they can join them. The cohort starts with with class levels and options that are true to the NPC. This, of course, does not prevent the players from suggesting to the NPC on what they should improve/change upon, which the NPC may most likely follow.
Your absolutely right. That said I don't allow the retraining rules from the Ultimate Campaign book without a very good reason. Since building a rapport with an NPC is a long process, I would hope players would start to befriend NPCs early whom they might need favors from later.
What I meant to say is that any future advancement can be guided by the players depending on the NPC. For example you might convince an old retired NG dwarf brewmaster to learn to fight with a sword instead of his trusty axe, but you'll have a tough time convincing him to stop drinking alcohol, change his devotion from Cayden Cailean, or change his outlook on life (alignment). There are of course exceptions.
sure they do, they can tell anyone who approaches them who they think won't be of use to the party to go sod off. Also, they can just retrain the cohort if anything, after you've convinced them to change.
Nowhere does this feat suggest that the players have any control over what class levels, racial/class traits or weapons the cohorts start out with. Each NPC that I notice begins to have a rapport with the party, gets more fleshed out as they come closer to asking the party if they can join them. The cohort starts with with class levels and options that are true to the NPC. This, of course, does not prevent the players from suggesting to the NPC on what they should improve/change upon, which the NPC may most likely follow.Your absolutely right. That said I don't allow the retraining rules from the Ultimate Campaign book without a very good reason. Since building a rapport with an NPC is a long process, I would hope players would start to befriend NPCs early whom they might need favors from later.
What I meant to say is that any future advancement can be guided by the players depending on the NPC. For example you might convince an old retired NG dwarf brewmaster to learn to fight with a sword instead of his trusty axe, but you'll have a tough time convincing him to stop drinking alcohol, change his devotion from Cayden Cailean, or change his outlook on life (alignment). There are of course exceptions.
well yeah, I can understand the second paragraph, but if he's a rogue and the party turns out don't really want a rogue, they have to get him to leave(probably ruining the feat in your game) and then try to find the fighter they actually wanted and smooze up with him.
why not just give the rogue a stern talking to and say go get some professional to combat training to sharpen your skills, we'll pay for everything, but you need to learn how to wield a large array of weapons and apply your skills more effectively if we're going to make it out of every fight alive.
EDIT: why is this in the advice section? no seriously was there a question?
EDIT: why is this in the advice section? no seriously was there a question?
Perhaps Malovec is intending to give advice rather than seek it. Or, perhaps it's an indirect way of asking how others tend to run leadership. After all, there are plenty of guides here in the advice thread, most of which aren't really questions perse'. I suppose it could fit in the general discussions thread, but that's up to Malovec and the moderators.
|
|
sure they do, they can tell anyone who approaches them who they think won't be of use to the party to go sod off. Also, they can just retrain the cohort if anything, after you've convinced them to change.
Nowhere does this feat suggest that the players have any control over what class levels, racial/class traits or weapons the cohorts start out with. Each NPC that I notice begins to have a rapport with the party, gets more fleshed out as they come closer to asking the party if they can join them. The cohort starts with with class levels and options that are true to the NPC. This, of course, does not prevent the players from suggesting to the NPC on what they should improve/change upon, which the NPC may most likely follow.Your absolutely right. That said I don't allow the retraining rules from the Ultimate Campaign book without a very good reason. Since building a rapport with an NPC is a long process, I would hope players would start to befriend NPCs early whom they might need favors from later.
What I meant to say is that any future advancement can be guided by the players depending on the NPC. For example you might convince an old retired NG dwarf brewmaster to learn to fight with a sword instead of his trusty axe, but you'll have a tough time convincing him to stop drinking alcohol, change his devotion from Cayden Cailean, or change his outlook on life (alignment). There are of course exceptions.
well yeah, I can understand the second paragraph, but if he's a rogue and the party turns out don't really want a rogue, they have to get him to leave(probably ruining the feat in your game) and then try to find the fighter they actually wanted and smooze up with him.
why not just give the rogue a stern talking to and say go get some professional to combat training to sharpen your skills, we'll pay for everything, but you need to learn how to wield a large array of weapons and apply your skills more effectively if we're...
I would probably allow him to switch classes from then on out, depending on the NPC of course. If the party needed a fighter then its their job to find a fighter's guild or wherever one might find a fighter and start developing a relationship with him/her. Like I said, the feat is earned not taken.
Understand that this is the way I run the feat, its not inherently better or worse then anybody else's interpretation, it just happens to be mine.
EDIT: why is this in the advice section? no seriously was there a question?
He did not ask a question, but I am assuming he wanted other to check his idea to see if there were any problems with it.
EDIT: why is this in the advice section? no seriously was there a question?He did not ask a question, but I am assuming he wanted other to check his idea to see if there were any problems with it.
ok. :/
that's what i thought, but with the advice boards rules, that get's foggy quick.
@dripps
here's the thing though, they still want the roguey guy, but they wanted him to effectively be a fighter, with fighter stats and bonuses. He can now wear heavier armor and have it effect his stealth less, he has full BAB so he's good in general combat, and safer since he doesn't have to try and "reach" for flanking.
This is basically why I don't like the fact that he's sort of pre-built for you. I still want HIM, but just not his mechanical impact on the group. see what i'm saying? they don't want a guy from teh fighters guild, they wanted that loveable dirt bag, that tried to swindle them that one time, just not all trying to flank in combat and stuff.
I have had leadership in my games for a long time, but I would let the players choose what they want him to do, and the class, assuming I dont just let them build him.
The only time I would step in would be if they tried to treat him as if he had no feelings, and had to follow their every order.
PC: Charge the dragon so Rythor(PC fighter) can get a flank
Cohort(non combat spec'd cleric): You do know that would be suicide since I have light armor and I don't do well in combat. I will have to decline the offer.
|
|
here's the thing though, they still want the roguey guy, but they wanted him to effectively be a fighter, with fighter stats and bonuses. He can now wear heavier armor and have it effect his stealth less, he has full BAB so he's good in general combat, and safer since he doesn't have to try and "reach" for flanking.This is basically why I don't like the fact that he's sort of pre-built for you. I still want HIM, but just not his mechanical impact on the group. see what i'm saying? they don't want a guy from teh fighters guild, they wanted that loveable dirt bag, that tried to swindle them that one time, just not all trying to flank in combat and stuff.
I understand what you're saying, and if the party obviously needs/wants a certain class on their cohort I will definitely develop a beloved NPC in that direction (if they aren't already fleshed out in game). Though, lets face it, if the party wants a fighter, I cant place dozens of axe-totting burly shop keepers in their path in hopes they talk to one of them.
Like I said, I would allow NPCs to possibly be convinced to take a different class, but not retrain. To me retraining a NPC's class, which is something they have struggled to achieve for years purely for the convenience of the party seems too gamey.
For example, lets say the party met a wizard and developed a long relationship with him. Having this wizard abandon his years of arcane study in order to retrain in the way of the sword just because the party needed a fighter will require very hard convincing, if even possible.
I would argue that a character's (PC or NPC) profession, class, skill and knowledge gained up to that point are a big part of who they are.
well honestly, i'd say only allow retraining on classes with synergy, because yeah, wizard to fighter flip is a bit much.
Here are some alternatives to the Leadership Feat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
scumbag gm: sure you can take this feat, removes all use by building the character for you...
"but maybe I wanted a witchguard npc for my witch'
Nope I built it to be fair enjoy your kobold paladin.
PC- kills himself just to roll up a new character without a wasted level 7 feat.
Yep, but this misunderstanding can be avoided. This is why if a player wants the leadership feat there must be a discussion with the GM to know what that feat entails at their table.
scumbag gm: sure you can take this feat, removes all use by building the character for you...
"but maybe I wanted a witchguard npc for my witch'
Nope I built it to be fair enjoy your kobold paladin.
PC- kills himself just to roll up a new character without a wasted level 7 feat.
I think this is extreme. I used the feat as a player and told the GM what I wanted to be good at, instead of him just giving me random NPC X.
scumbag gm: sure you can take this feat, removes all use by building the character for you...
"but maybe I wanted a witchguard npc for my witch'
Nope I built it to be fair enjoy your kobold paladin.
PC- kills himself just to roll up a new character without a wasted level 7 feat.
what dripps said, and just tell the kobold paladin to go sod off while laughing about his height, he'll be back later to stab you in the shin.
Thanks everyone, I only posted it here because I wanted to see if you thought it was fair. I know it is a touchy feat.
Were I to take the Leadership Feat and then my GM said that the cohort was an NPC effectively out of my control, I would be fairly miffed. There is a difference between an NPC hireling and a cohort, and that difference is a Feat.
I have taken Leadership numerous times and it has added to the game. The only time it had a serious mechanical impact was a D&D3.5 Healer class cohort riding a unicorn, who had enough scrolls and spells to keep the party running through just about any combat. My GM nicknamed her the Duracell Bunny.
It wasn't a problem, but it did substantially affect the party's encounters. Neither GM nor other players thought that it was over the top, however.
I enjoy the creativity of building, designing and justifying followers, especially when my PCs reach the level where they have strongholds or other bases of operation. If that was taken from me and the GM said he'd control it all then I would probably forgo the feat altogether. After all, there are very few other official feats that are passively aggressively weakened by GM fiat. Can you imagine taking Power Attack but being told it only applied to using a specific weapon type? Or that an Animal Companion or Familiar would be chosen, designed and entirely run as an NPC by the GM?
Sure, Malovec, what you proposed is fair. A DM designing a cohort has to walk a fine line between gimping it so badly the player feels ripped off and letting the cohort become too powerful for a one feat investment. I'm considering some house rules which would limit the cohort's level to the PC's level -4 but provide the cohort with something like Hero Points so that it can survive the occasional Fireball.
I really wish the followers were more numerous and competent so they could be used for stuff like being the crew of a pirate or viking ship. I suppose maybe that's more like a mass combat army, but maybe Leadership could give you a few free BP to support a small army (or navy in this case)
Devil, luckily my players don't power game much if ever. The person who is using leadership doesn't even care about followers and just wants a battle healer.
So I am thinking about this mephit that is in the storyline and making him an life oracle.
Malovec, I think your terms are reasonable. Perhaps even too forgiving personally. A one feat investment shouldn't add overwhelming power to a player.
As a GM, I would allow the player to run the character in combat (mostly for ease of my side) but would tell the player that the character is their own individual and while they may be your follower aren't going to exlude themselves from consideration or do everything for you along the way. I also wouldn't allow the player to make the character themself. They can tell me generally what they would like to have. A healer, a melee combatant, spellcasters, etc. But they don't get to design some superoptimized cohort or make some schmuck to hide away and craft for the group the whole time with a single feat.
I could write more, but as long as whatever terms you deicde work for you and your player and it doesn't harm the game or the fun of the other players then it's probably okay.
I've never really had a problem with leadership. The only times anyone takes it are if the party really needs to fill a niche (no one playing a class that has status removal, or trap finding, or a full caster) or if it really fits the role of the character (a player in skulls&shackles took it for the crew on the ship.)
In both of those cases I let players choose from any curently known NPC in the game. It must be someone they have already met. I give them the stat block and they can level it up to match their leadership score. Players work out gear in party, but generally the cohort shares a cut rather than getting their own.
I've never really had a problem with leadership. The only times anyone takes it are if the party really needs to fill a niche (no one playing a class that has status removal, or trap finding, or a full caster) or if it really fits the role of the character (a player in skulls&shackles took it for the crew on the ship.)
In both of those cases I let players choose from any curently known NPC in the game. It must be someone they have already met. I give them the stat block and they can level it up to match their leadership score. Players work out gear in party, but generally the cohort shares a cut rather than getting their own.
Prior to pathfinder I didn't either, it just seemed like it was not needed but as I've gotten 2 and half years of d&d 3.5 under my belt I feel more and more confident I can control it.
Malovec, I think your terms are reasonable. Perhaps even too forgiving personally. A one feat investment shouldn't add overwhelming power to a player.
As a GM, I would allow the player to run the character in combat (mostly for ease of my side) but would tell the player that the character is their own individual and while they may be your follower aren't going to exlude themselves from consideration or do everything for you along the way. I also wouldn't allow the player to make the character themself. They can tell me generally what they would like to have. A healer, a melee combatant, spellcasters, etc. But they don't get to design some superoptimized cohort or make some schmuck to hide away and craft for the group the whole time with a single feat.
I could write more, but as long as whatever terms you deicde work for you and your player and it doesn't harm the game or the fun of the other players then it's probably okay.
I think you wrote enough. :) At first they did want to have a hand in creating the character at first level and I do the rest, but i didn't like that.
I feel a cohort is someone who previously had no connection to you but through your adventures this person or thing has decided to become your personal comrade and adventure with you.
@Malovec - Having a battle healer can be pretty powerful. In a game I run I also converted an existing NPC into a Life Oracle (via miraculous intervention). I also gave him two levels of Rogue to help represent his seedy past and grant him Evasion.
@BigDTBone - How did Leadership work out for attracting a crew? I was looking at it myself, but the number and level of the followers is so low it seems like I'd need to be around 12th level before they could even man a keelboat. Then they'd all explode if we ever got hit with a Fireball.
My and my GM have a long running joke on a "Sword Caddie" Cohort. He cranked knowledge skills and then hands me a X-bane Sword.
"Yeah your gonna need this Trollsbane sword sir"
He just follows me around. Rolls knowledge checks. Pulls out swords. I imagined him as a lore warden but bard would work better especially if you want him to sing for the buffs.
As a gm. When a pc gains a cohort, i would allow the cohort standard wealth for a pc. Due to that cohort being responsible for himself up to that point. From that point on the pc becomes responsible for the cohorts financial needs using his own. However if the pc wants his cohort to have more then the pc will have to adventure without the cohort for a period of time. The cohort will be able to gain up to 75% wbl for a pc of that level.
This represents the npc adventuring away from the party performing his own quests. And what not.
But the player actually has to do without the aid of his cohort for several games for me to feel this justifiable.
Rogar, I believe the standard wealth for a cohort is standard NPC wealth by level for when they join. Not PC wealth by level.
Leadership Score: Your base Leadership score equals your level plus your Charisma modifier. In order to take into account negative Charisma modifiers, this table allows for very low Leadership scores, but you must still be 7th level or higher in order to gain the Leadership feat. Outside factors can affect your Leadership score, as detailed above.
Cohort Level: You can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than yourself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level (see Creating NPCs). A cohort can be of any race or class. The cohort's alignment may not be opposed to your alignment on either the law/chaos or good/evil axis, and you take a –1 penalty to your Leadership score if you recruit a cohort of an alignment different from your own.
A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party's XP. Instead, divide the cohort's level by your level. Multiply this result by the total XP awarded to you, then add that number of experience points to the cohort's total.
If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than your level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed to attain the next level.
Number of Followers by Level: You can lead up to the indicated number of characters of each level. Followers are similar to cohorts, except they're generally low-level NPCs. Because they're usually 5 or more levels behind you, they're rarely effective in combat.
Followers don't earn experience and thus don't gain levels. When you gain a new level, consult Table: Leadership to determine if you acquire more followers, some of whom may be higher level than the existing followers. Don't consult the table to see if your cohort gains levels, however, because cohorts earn experience on their own.
Rogar, I believe the standard wealth for a cohort is standard NPC wealth by level for when they join. Not PC wealth by level.
...Leadership Score: Your base Leadership score equals your level plus your Charisma modifier. In order to take into account negative Charisma modifiers, this table allows for very low Leadership scores, but you must still be 7th level or higher in order to gain the Leadership feat. Outside factors can affect your Leadership score, as detailed above.
Cohort Level: You can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than yourself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level (see Creating NPCs). A cohort can be of any race or class. The cohort's alignment may not be opposed to your alignment on either the law/chaos or good/evil axis, and you take a –1 penalty to your Leadership score if you recruit a cohort of an alignment different from your own.
A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party's XP. Instead, divide the cohort's level by your level. Multiply this result by the total XP awarded to you, then add that number of experience points to the cohort's total.
If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than your level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed to attain the next level.
Number of Followers by Level: You can lead up to the indicated number of characters of each level. Followers are similar to cohorts, except they're generally low-level NPCs. Because they're usually 5 or more levels behind you, they're rarely effective in combat.
Followers don't earn experience and thus don't gain levels. When you gain a new level, consult Table: Leadership to determine if you acquire more followers, some of whom may be higher level than the existing followers. Don't consult the table to see if your cohort gains levels, however, because cohorts earn
Right you are. I get so used to pc that i forget the n.
I like Leadership. To me it represents a character growing up. Before leadership you have all kinds of power and basically no responsibilities. If a GM tries to put the weight of the world on your shoulders you can justifiably shuck it off and say tell it to someone responsible, I'm just a simple adventurer. You can't do that once you have leadership. You have to act like an adult. Because you are responsible. Responsible for a bunch of people who look up to you, share your alignment and need your protection. Because you, the player, made the choice to take responsibility for others by taking the feat Leadership.
I have seen it handled well and seen it handled poorly. Generally most of the disasters come from GMs who should have just said no. If it is not a good time in the story for the characters to grow up and take responsibility for a bunch of low level NPCs, do not let your players take this feat. It isn't supposed to be balanced against other feats, it is balanced by the story. Like a Paladin is stronger than a Fighter but has less freedom of action, a character with leadership is stronger than one without it but has less freedom of action.
I generally don't have a problem with the OP's guidelines, but I would let the player design the cohort and let the GM veto it. Leadership has enough drawbacks without adding in that the cohort will be subpar. I think that item crafting cohorts are some of the least problematic, as long as they are built to make a profit for themselves (a 2.5% profit margin is more than enough with an adventuring party shoving 1-4k gold through your workshop every day.)
@Malovec - Having a battle healer can be pretty powerful. In a game I run I also converted an existing NPC into a Life Oracle (via miraculous intervention). I also gave him two levels of Rogue to help represent his seedy past and grant him Evasion.
@BigDTBone - How did Leadership work out for attracting a crew? I was looking at it myself, but the number and level of the followers is so low it seems like I'd need to be around 12th level before they could even man a keelboat. Then they'd all explode if we ever got hit with a Fireball.
Well, drumming up a crew was a bit more difficult at early levels, but the player who was captain was playing a Bard. That made diplomacy checks to attract crew a bit easier and also has stat synergy with the leadership feat. Before leadership he basically went to port peril and announced at all the different bars that he would pay the debts of any man in exchange for two years service. This got quite a bit of attention.
When he became high enough level to take leadership he used the follow slots to count as "loyal" crew. Ie, those crew that would stick with him even if the stuff hit the fan. Now that they are 9th level he has a stupid high leadership score (many of the plot points in skulls and shackles will add modifiers to leadership) so that basically his entire crew now is "loyal" particularly when you consider the other PC's as crew/officers. He took Sandara Quinn as his cohort which has helped quite a bit.
I would recommend the following constrains on leadership in addition to the above.
Leadership Req: BaB must equal hit dice, Must not possesses spell slots greater than 4th level.
Cohort Req: May not include classes which gain access to 9th level arcane magic, for arcane casters are arrogant.
...Why?
|
It all seems like a fine way to run Leadership to me.
Personally, I kind of always wanted to run it as the PC announcing an open position in the group (a sort of "want ad") and the GM comes up with a few rough ideas for applicants, then the PC picks one and the GM fleshes out the build.
For example, the PC writes up an announcement: "Adventurer wanted. Must have experience with arcane magic and with the sword. Inquire: Rolf the Red at the Fizzing Flask Tavern."
It sounds like the player wants a bard, but from that description, a magus might apply, or even a tengu wizard (or a gnome fighter for that matter). The GM would think of a few ideas for characters that would meet that description, and then write down names, class levels, and maybe a few feats on index cards. The player then picks a candidate, and the GM finishes the character sheet.
If it's the right group for it, you could even roleplay the interviews.
I'm not sure why the player shouldn't be able to design his own cohort from scratch, and bring it to the table at the next session. The rule about being a maximum of 2 levels below the player seems to keep out the worst of the cheese. I'm fine with all the rules from the original post, except for the part where the GM creates the cohort and asks for player approval. Perhaps the player should ask for Gm approval of race & class prior to going home to cook up the cohort, but why rob the player of the fun of making a unique and interesting new character to flesh out?
I'd also request the player come up with some backstory to explain the link between the PC & the new cohort. Romantic interest? Shared goal or religion? Shared cultural background? Younger brother, cousin, etc?
My only problem with cohorts is when you have a large group of players. More than 5 players around the table, and I wouldn't really want a cohort to add into the mix (in addition to existing animal companions, summoned critters and so on). My group often has only 3 players + GM, so adding a cohort is an excellent idea. Indeed, before we hit leadership level, we often had a friendly NPC travelling as an additional party member.
Seems to me that any agreement about treasure should be negociated with the other players. When I first took a cohort, I assumed I'd be paying for her out of my share, but the other players immediately assumed that the cohort would get an equal share of treasure as the other PCs, so hey, we went with that.
But as a player, I would be peeved if the GM insisted on designing the cohort instead of me. So peeved that I would insist on dumping leadership and taking something selfish instead.
Players should be given maximum leeway in making decisions, and designing a cohort seems to fall into that category. After all, what dangers could there be from the player designing a "junior PC" cohort? Surely no worse than the player's own PC-optimisation plans.
YMMV.
When he became high enough level to take leadership he used the follow slots to count as "loyal" crew. Ie, those crew that would stick with him even if the stuff hit the fan. Now that they are 9th level he has a stupid high leadership score (many of the plot points in skulls and shackles will add modifiers to leadership) so that basically his entire crew now is "loyal" particularly when you consider the other PC's as crew/officers. He took Sandara Quinn as his cohort which has helped quite a bit.
I'm playing a half-orc summoner in our Skull and Shackles campaign. I also took leadership but I made Rosie Cusswell, the first NPC I really connected with, my cohort and sent her out with her own ship. That gave me a second ship for my (hopefully soon to grow) fleet with a captain I knew would be loyal (unlike a certain nefarious pair we mutinied against in the first place).
But as a player, I would be peeved if the GM insisted on designing the cohort instead of me. So peeved that I would insist on dumping leadership and taking something selfish instead.Players should be given maximum leeway in making decisions, and designing a cohort seems to fall into that category. After all, what dangers could there be from the player designing a "junior PC" cohort? Surely no worse than the player's own PC-optimisation plans.
YMMV.
Oh, it could be much worse than the PC's own optimization plans for his single character because now he builds two, each with their own set of actions to unleash in combat. That said, what I'm mostly looking for is an indication that the cohort isn't simply an extension of the PC's own power and not built for entirely selfish reasons. Building a cohort to increase one's own power, to me, is no less selfish than taking a feat that contributes to your own attack bonus. That's why I usually prefer to build them based on the player's input or reserve approval rights over what the player builds.
I'm not sure why the player shouldn't be able to design his own cohort from scratch, and bring it to the table at the next session.
For a couple of reasons, most importantly being that is not what the feat is. Leadership is not a player feat, it is a character feat. What you are describing would be a player feat that reads, "You, the player, get two PC's. One of your PC's must be APL-2. Normal: You only get one PC."
The cohort is specifically an NPC, and GM's build NPC's. That's why my rule for leadership is you must select an NPC from the world that your character has already met and fits within the level restriction. I will give you the character sheet and you may level the character as you see fit from that point forward, and may level them to your level-2 if they are not already.
Despite these restrictions I still see a player take leadership in 50% of my games. The only feats which see more action are power attack, spell focus, TWF, and selective channel.
The main issue with Leadership is when a Player uses him as a source for crafting, like say Wands. Gives the Cohort Craft Wands, so that the cohort can sit home, cranking out wands while the main PC doesn;t have to burn a feat nor take downtime. This is abusive.
The main issue with Leadership is when a Player uses him as a source for crafting, like say Wands. Gives the Cohort Craft Wands, so that the cohort can sit home, cranking out wands while the main PC doesn;t have to burn a feat nor take downtime. This is abusive.
Frankly, I haven't found it to be particularly abusive at all. The most limiting factor I've seen has been money. Of course, characters in my game tended to take the winter off from adventuring (and I encouraged them to do so) so time crunches weren't as big a problem for them.
Definitely seems reasonable overall I think. The treasure splitting has always seemed interesting to me. It makes sense for the cohort to get a share of the leaders cut, but at the same time it slows down the WBL of the leader. Although, they are getting a cohort out of the deal, so that may not be a big thing.
A fair number of players insist that the cohort is the master's responsibility. If the master feels that the cohort earned something of the haul, it comes out of his share's not the party's. One of the deciders of whether to allow the feat or not should be the overall group dynamics. If there is going to be argument about a cohort's share, it's best to ban the feat entirely.
That's perfectly understandable. I'd be more than willing to play that way.
What actually interests me, is if the entire party takes the feat. I have 5 players in my group with myself included. So a party of 5 would then become a party of 10, albeit the cohorts would be weaker than their leaders to a point. Would the party need to rotate cohorts then? Like, "We won't need the bard cohort this time, so he can sit this one out. We may need the barbarian cohort though."
As far as the DM making the cohort, it sort of depends on the DM and making sure communication is had between player getting the feat and the DM. As I said my DM is making me a cohort once I reach 7th and I gave him some particulars I'd like to be included that I felt would fit my character and his story / abilities. Otherwise I don't know what he's making really. However, I trust my DM. He likes building characters when he's a player and makes really capable / good characters at that. He also told me that in the end I'll get to pick, as he's going to make a few and I'll be "picking" one in game. Interview or however. So, it felt like a good compromise to me. It's made me really excited for lv. 7, as I can't wait to see how it plays out. Which if a DM can make a player excited for a feat, without them really knowing what they're going to get... I'd say that's a good thing.
The main issue with Leadership is when a Player uses him as a source for crafting, like say Wands. Gives the Cohort Craft Wands, so that the cohort can sit home, cranking out wands while the main PC doesn;t have to burn a feat nor take downtime. This is abusive.
But the PC did burn a feat--for Leadership. The difference between taking Craft Wand is that the PC doesn't require downtime, but does need to return to a particular location to provides funds for wands and pick up the finished products. Further, the cohort is less effective due to a lower level, especially if the party "moves around a lot". Finally, the cohort is an liability that enemies can exploit, especially if left relatively undefended.
Yeah, I just don't see the abuse. By the time the cohort is good enough to really exploit by giving multiple crafting feats, it really isn't much of an exploit compared to the PC's other powers.
The main issue with Leadership is when a Player uses him as a source for crafting, like say Wands. Gives the Cohort Craft Wands, so that the cohort can sit home, cranking out wands while the main PC doesn;t have to burn a feat nor take downtime. This is abusive.But the PC did burn a feat--for Leadership. The difference between taking Craft Wand is that the PC doesn't require downtime, but does need to return to a particular location to provides funds for wands and pick up the finished products. Further, the cohort is less effective due to a lower level, especially if the party "moves around a lot". Finally, the cohort is an liability that enemies can exploit, especially if left relatively undefended.
Yeah, I just don't see the abuse. By the time the cohort is good enough to really exploit by giving multiple crafting feats, it really isn't much of an exploit compared to the PC's other powers.
You mean like the wizard lvl 5 that can have 4 crafting feats when you first get leadership?
I'm of the opinion that a cohort is someone who hangs out with you. Someone who does crafting and such while you go out into the world is an employee, not a cohort.
In some games the PCs can’t visit Mage-Mart for all their magic item shopping needs. In one game we were on a very long sea voyage and weren't going to hit a civilized port for many levels. Rather than having the party’s caster devote a bunch of feats to crafting it made sense to spend a single feat on a cohort who could handle multiple crafting needs.
In most games I've played in the primary constraint on crafting was lack of downtime. I could see how a DM might feel that using a cohort to bypass that constraint was cheesy, but I could also see how players might feel that being constantly pressed forward into more adventures without any chance to rest in between is cheesy too (like campaigns where you go from level 1 to 12 or so in about a month)