I'm running a campaign and my party of 4 is about to reach level 7 and are planning on taking the leadership feat. We had a discussion on who gets to "create" the cohorts. I said that as the GM that any NPCs fall under my domain and since the campaign is set in an area where there is limited population that not every class would be available.
my suggestion was to come up with a list of 10 or so base class/race combinations and allow the PCs to choose from them.
so the question is who gets to create the cohorts and followers
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM should work with the player to create the cohort. As referee you have the final say, but don't make your decisions arbitrarily or in a way that will make player regret choosing the feat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a game that I DM, the player makes their cohort. I would no sooner make an npc and say "here, this is what you get" than I would insist that I choose what weapon they take weapon focus in, or what abilities they enchant into a sword with Craft Arms and Armor.
The player takes the feat, so they get to make the choice. That said, I think Leadership is best when the character has already met an npc that they'd like to take on as a sidekick/helper/apprentice, and the feat is taken to make it official.
The way my DM is going to play it (from what he told me at least) is that I give him a few particulars I'm looking for (i.e. female, magic user, support style) and he's going to build a few different characters and introduce them to my character in game. Then, my in game character will decide which he likes best and have them join.
This does take a lot of trust in my DM's character creation. It would suck if the character wasn't good enough to stay useful, but I know my DM personally. I've played alongside his own player characters once or twice in other campaigns, so I very much trust he won't give me a cohort that wouldn't be of use to me or the party overall.
From the look of the comments though, it's whatever you feel comfortable doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with all of the previous posters, and both members of the design team - the player builds the cohort. While it's appropriate for the GM to work with the player to integrate a cohort into the game, the GM should not impose any more restrictions than are absolutely necessary.
I like to introduce cohorts into the game and give them a reason to follow their leader, so I ask players to create their cohort (using whatever character creation rules apply to PCs, but with NPS wealth) and give me a copy, with either a verbal or written personality description. Then, I use that NPC as a story element. Regardless of a "limited population" I'm sure you can think up a reason to have any cohort available once the PC creates it. If you're stuck on ideas, start with this brainstorm:
- The party frees the cohort from captivity. (jail, prison, kidnapping, cult indoctrination, a tower accessible only by hair ...)
- The party rescues the cohort from harm. (attack/combat is the simplest, but a cleric could gain a cohort by casting Heal or Resurrection)
- The cohort seeks out the PC/party because of some past deed they have done. (presumably some impressive feat(s) done in a previous part of the campaign.)
- The cohort has an existing relationship to the PC. (blood relative, marriage, betrothal, childhood friend, etc.)
- The cohort was hired to oppose the party (spy on, assassinate, thwart, follow, etc.) but after observation has decided to turn on it's employer and join the PCs instead. (They may reveal their original job right away, or only admit it later when they feel the need. There's lots of room for story in this one!)
I always allow leadership in my games, the restrictions I set in place are (1) the cohort must be an npc your character has met in-game before taking the feat. I will hand over the character sheet and if the npc was less than apl-2 then they player can level them up. The player makes all further leveling and gear adjustments to the cohort.
(2) For followers they must be from the NPC guide or the GM's guide. That is a rough shell; spells, particular weapons, and some feats may be changed but the core build must come from one of those sources.
I find that these restrictions keep abuse issues out of the game and also facilitate speedy gameplay (always a bonus). Despite these restrictions, leadership is one of the most popular feats at my table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a game that I DM, the player makes their cohort. I would no sooner make an npc and say "here, this is what you get" than I would insist that I choose what weapon they take weapon focus in, or what abilities they enchant into a sword with Craft Arms and Armor.
Those are bad comparisons. You are the world builder. Except for the PC themselves and any extension of them, such as a familiar or eidolon, YOU make the people who inhabit the world. The NPCs are your responsibility, and cohorts are NPCs.
Now, there are plenty of reasons why it should be this way. But here's just one that leaps right off the top of my head.
If you allow a player to create his own cohort, what is to stop him from creating a character so enamored with and dedicated to his PC that he jumps on every grenade that comes his way?
This is the same, age-old reason we don't let players play their own cohorts, henchmen, hangers-on, etc. Because since 1974 gamers have been proving over and over that, if given this opportunity, their PCs will never come to harm as an army of slavish devotees piles up ever higher, their oceans of blood overflowing the gore-stained tankards of the gods of slaughter and death while their laughter fills the groaning, suffering Multiverse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a game that I DM, the player makes their cohort. I would no sooner make an npc and say "here, this is what you get" than I would insist that I choose what weapon they take weapon focus in, or what abilities they enchant into a sword with Craft Arms and Armor.
Those are bad comparisons. You are the world builder. Except for the PC themselves and any extension of them, such as a familiar or eidolon, YOU make the people who inhabit the world. The NPCs are your responsibility, and cohorts are NPCs.
Now, there are plenty of reasons why it should be this way. But here's just one that leaps right off the top of my head.
If you allow a player to create his own cohort, what is to stop him from creating a character so enamored with and dedicated to his PC that he jumps on every grenade that comes his way?
This is the same, age-old reason we don't let players play their own cohorts, henchmen, hangers-on, etc. Because since 1974 gamers have been proving over and over that, if given this opportunity, their PCs will never come to harm as an army of slavish devotees piles up ever higher, their oceans of blood overflowing the gore-stained tankards of the gods of slaughter and death while their laughter fills the groaning, suffering Multiverse.
I disagree. Those are good comparisons, because they are all feats. There is no logical reason that the player should have less choice in Leadership than in another feat that offers a choice.
As for what prevents them from using the cohort as a "human shield"? Well, I can think of a couple things. Primarily, death. If the cohort dies, they'll be without one, and suffer a penalty to attracting a new one. Secondly, the DM. It's perfectly reasonable for the DM to say "Billy Deadman IV seems hesitant to step into the maelstrom of whirling blades." The cohort is not robot, they're a being with goals, interests, and an existence of their own.
If players are using cohorts as cannon fodder, that's an amazing waste of a feat. There are wands of summon monster for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a game that I DM, the player makes their cohort. I would no sooner make an npc and say "here, this is what you get" than I would insist that I choose what weapon they take weapon focus in, or what abilities they enchant into a sword with Craft Arms and Armor.
Those are bad comparisons. You are the world builder. Except for the PC themselves and any extension of them, such as a familiar or eidolon, YOU make the people who inhabit the world. The NPCs are your responsibility, and cohorts are NPCs.
Now, there are plenty of reasons why it should be this way. But here's just one that leaps right off the top of my head.
If you allow a player to create his own cohort, what is to stop him from creating a character so enamored with and dedicated to his PC that he jumps on every grenade that comes his way?
This is the same, age-old reason we don't let players play their own cohorts, henchmen, hangers-on, etc. Because since 1974 gamers have been proving over and over that, if given this opportunity, their PCs will never come to harm as an army of slavish devotees piles up ever higher, their oceans of blood overflowing the gore-stained tankards of the gods of slaughter and death while their laughter fills the groaning, suffering Multiverse.
There's a difference between creating the cohort and controlling the cohort, and the extent they believe that 'slavish devotion' goes and the reality is very different:).
I suspect there is a rule somewhere that it is the DMs responsibility to create and control the NPC, but I have enough to do so in my game the players create the cohort, they also control it - right up to the point where they try shenanigans like this and then they will find out why it's not a good idea to abuse the good nature of a friend and ally. But I've been lucky so far, none of my players have seen fit to abuse that trust. Maybe because I give them fair warning that I will step in if they try anything dastardly.
While I feel that your question has probably be more than thoroughly answered, I'd like to emphasize what Blueluck had said about introducing the cohort through in-game / story means.
He had just finished killing a troll by himself, returning to an outpost, looking for a ride back to the kingdom he helped found. He runs into a cranky old man who almost immediately insults my character for bothering him. My character shrugs, cleaning off his clothing with prestidigitation, walking away while the old man begs for the (just now realized) wizards help in protecting his wagon headed towards the kingdom. My character ignores him, going somewhere to sit and appreciate the beautiful stars. Up comes a girl, who apologizes kindly for her father's horrible manners and asks my character to reconsider. My character agrees and the next day accompanies them in wagon to the kingdom. During the ride, he was able to speak a bit more to the girl, more out of boredom than anything and learned just a little bit about her before arriving.
My DM tells me OOC after the individual session was done, "You probably already figured it out, but that lady you spoke with is one of a few potential cohorts for you when you get leadership."
Thing is... I didn't know. Spoilers I suppose, but I didn't care. I was excited because I didn't know AND because it was so in story that it would mean something to me and my character. Anyway, that's just me personally.
Generally, players make their own cohorts. With that being the case, something I suppose could potentially work, if you have a player that is willing to put in some time or just likes making characters, is perhaps you could have the player make up a few or more potential cohorts they think they will enjoy. Then, you could either choose one of their own pre-approved cohorts and bring them in game (whichever makes the most story / fun / flavor sense) or you could bring them all in and have the player choose. The latter though won't have much effect as surely the player will have already decided the one they wanted most before the game even started. To combat this, perhaps you have them just give you the stats and race while you fill the rest in (name, background, story, reason for wanting to follow PC). That way, unless shown explicitly what class the character is through actions or scene detail, you could have them choose in game, possibly without knowing which cohort it was that they had made, sort of forcing them to choose based on their character picking the one they favored the most.
Just giving possible options, possibly horrible ones at that, ones that players may not enjoy in the end. I've never tried them (yet) so I can't honestly say. That being said, it's just brainstorming possibilities and alternatives that COULD work and I'm putting them out there because I enjoy brainstorming and ideas.......even though this is a rules thread and not an advice or discussion thread. I'm of three minds about most things after all. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are silent on this. I let the players do it because it is one less thing I have to do.
I've allowed Leadership for the first time in my game. Two of my players took the feat and one is thinking about it. One player chose a Non-Player Character from the story line and I created the cohort with limited input from the Player. The other player suggested a character from their Player Character's back story, and we created that cohort together. I mainly just wanted to avoid certain kinds of cohorts that I just don't want to GM for. Friction is beginning to show in that the player and I have different assumptions concerning how much free-will a cohort has.
I have mixed feelings so far and I can't say yet whether I would allow Leadership again in a future game. I think simply roleplaying the special relationship between a Player Character and a devoted sidekick may still be a better way to go.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The NPC is still his own person so he does not have to do everythign the PC says if the cohort will be in danger. I think that writing a background story for the NPC, and talking about how he would behave in certain situations will help you and the player decide if he should take it or not.
It should be more like a superhero and a sidekick, who may not always do what they are told, and the cohort being a "yes man".
The NPC is still his own person so he does not have to do everythign the PC says if the cohort will be in danger. I think that writing a background story for the NPC, and talking about how he would behave in certain situations will help you and the player decide if he should take it or not.
It should be more like a superhero and a sidekick, who may not always do what they are told, and the cohort being a "yes man".
Wraithstrike has the right of it here. Given a little consideration as beings in their own right, cohorts are less likely to be disposable tools, and more likely to be valued allies.
A consideration with Leadership is always both the power multiplier it offers and the increased time each combat round can take if Cohorts are used in combat. Letting every party member take Leadership could really slow down combat.
One good suggestion I saw for Cohort building was that the GM builds them according to a brief from the player, much as Third Mind says. So your player asks for a character to support and heal the party, taking a back-row line in combat. You could build a sample Archer Bard and Support Cleric, allow them to choose between them and offer suggestions for changes to feats. You then tweak the character they choose. It's a bit of work, but would mean they get more-or-less what they want without total min-maxing.
"What do they want the Cohort for?" is also a useful question. Is there an obvious gap in the party that it could fill? Non-combat Cohorts can also be useful, especially for crafting or if the players have a guild or kingdom that needs capable management.
Wraithstrike is quite right that a Cohort is not a mindless extension of the character. They are loyal, but should have a distinct personality and limits on how far their loyalty goes.
In my game a cohort is a character that is someone part of the story that a PC make a friend, hireling or follower out of and then we decide that it Can be a cohort. Sometimes players Can ask in good time and characters Will be introduced in the game at fitting moments.
But some GMs play with just give players free reins to make the perfect rigth hand man. On of my curent GMs is like that and i am very temptet to make a body guard for my wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd always heard that the DM was "supposed to" build the cohort. Maybe that was a rule in 3.5, but I can't seem to find it in Pathfinder, and based on the links it looks like two members of the design team have said the player should get to design the cohort.
This sounds nice so that players don't get stuck with a cohort htey hate. Unfortunately it brings the fact that Leadership is really powerful even more to the forefront though. Granted, some PCs already have useful pets like animal companions, familiars, and even the dreaded eidolon, but a cohort is potentially an even bigger boost for just a single feat.
Most campaigns I've played in ban or at least highly discourage Leadership due to the power of the cohort and the extra time it takes during play.
I would say that the GM always has final approval. If the player wants to fully build the cohort, that's fine, but it then has to be submitted to the GM, who can make any necessary changes. Alternatively, the player can specify the type of cohort, and the GM can build it.
I always prefer it if the cohort is a character the PCs have met.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The NPC is still his own person so he does not have to do everythign the PC says if the cohort will be in danger. I think that writing a background story for the NPC, and talking about how he would behave in certain situations will help you and the player decide if he should take it or not.
It should be more like a superhero and a sidekick, who may not always do what they are told, and the cohort being a "yes man".
I've never had a problem with this. By that I mean that I've never had a character try to force a cohort to do something they wouldn't normally do. I assume that the party is going to recruit like minded folks, so being brave in combat is expected. However, standing in front of to suck up hits like a human(oid) shield is not gonna happen.
I also insist that your cohort will actually be a cohort, ie will follow you around. If you want a crafter then it will have to be an underling follower.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The NPC is still his own person so he does not have to do everythign the PC says if the cohort will be in danger. I think that writing a background story for the NPC, and talking about how he would behave in certain situations will help you and the player decide if he should take it or not.
It should be more like a superhero and a sidekick, who may not always do what they are told, and the cohort being a "yes man".
I've never had a problem with this. By that I mean that I've never had a character try to force a cohort to do something they wouldn't normally do. I assume that the party is going to recruit like minded folks, so being brave in combat is expected. However, standing in front of to suck up hits like a human(oid) shield is not gonna happen.
I also insist that your cohort will actually be a cohort, ie will follow you around. If you want a crafter then it will have to be an underling follower.
I think the problem is when people treat the cohort like it is a golem made of flesh that will just follow any order, and not like it is a person.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So you think everything from every book has to be allowed in every game?
Can't agree with that, sorry.
I don't allow 3.5 stuff from WotC or even from Paizo in their 3.5 days.
But I pretty much allow everything else. There are few games where I'll use PFS rules. But those are mostly where I'm not home brewing the world. When home brewing, if something is unbalanced I can compensate.
You know there has been a lot of philosophical debate on who creates cohorts.
Some people believe that the you and your cohort were destined to be together, others believe that there are many cohorts out there for all of us and its simply ludicrous that there is that "one perfect cohort" out there.
Personally, I'm not sure who makes cohorts. The only thing I can tell you with certainty is that they use the NPC design rules from the CRB and are traditionally built with a 15 point buy and get substantially less gold than a PC does.
Outside of that... I don't know.
I just
don't
know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player does the build, DM has editing and veto power.
Two things to watch out for- the cohort should not be a "crafting machine". Dont allow the cohort to just be a tool to make mgaic items cheap for the PC's. Potions, sure, why not?
And, did you actually mean ALL four PC's are gonna get Leadership?!?
You need to control the number of figures on the board during battles or they will bog down like crazy.
In the last game I was playing in, 3 players got leadership. It was actually a lot of fun.
My cohort was more popular than my PC and people started to assume I worked for him.
Made for some fun situations.
It strongly depends on the the level of your roleplaying Ubercroz! More seriously, it depends on your GM being able to assume you play two disparate characters as disparate charaters. They can be entirely different people, and roleplaying/development must proceed as such.
Some cohororts end up as crafting b$+%~es. Some end up filling thankless roles like buffer/healer. Give them dignity, regardless of their party role. Congratulate, thank and praise them. Promote them when appropriate.
Me.
I create all cohorts. I've been expecting you, Dunit13dl.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Me.
I create all cohorts. I've been expecting you, Dunit13dl.
Oh cool, i'm glad you said that. Can you email me a dozen possible cohorts for a level 17 party in savage tide? Maybe by this weekend if that's ok?
(i am completely not serious, but that was my first reaction when i read your post and wanted to share the laugh(hopefully?) )
That said, i believe i previously said above, but i also make the cohorts for the group.
It strongly depends on the the level of your roleplaying Ubercroz! More seriously, it depends on your GM being able to assume you play two disparate characters as disparate charaters. They can be entirely different people, and roleplaying/development must proceed as such.
Some cohororts end up as crafting b+@!%es. Some end up filling thankless roles like buffer/healer. Give them dignity, regardless of their party role. Congratulate, thank and praise them. Promote them when appropriate.
My PC was a magus that I played more like a paladin, my cohort was a warpriest party boy with an int of 8 and a cha of 14.
my PC sounded like a noble knight, my cohort sounded like a drunk sylvester stalone.
all the NPC's drank with him on the weekends while my PC was out trying to save the city.
The most PCs with Leadership I've seen is in a 16th level game I sometimes run. The party was really low on healing capabilities, so I encouraged somebody to take a Life Oracle as a cohort. Then the party Barbarian met an amusing little mushroom man and decided to befriend him, netting an Alchemist cohort with lots of infusions and touch injection, kind of a buffing backpack who makes the Barbarian a little better (which he probably needs to be given the fact he's been adventuring with some very tough and powerful PCs)
Player does the build, DM has editing and veto power.
Two things to watch out for- the cohort should not be a "crafting machine". Dont allow the cohort to just be a tool to make mgaic items cheap for the PC's. Potions, sure, why not?
And, did you actually mean ALL four PC's are gonna get Leadership?!?
You need to control the number of figures on the board during battles or they will bog down like crazy.
yes all four players could take leadership. i cant allow 1 and not the others.
yes all four players could take leadership. i cant allow 1 and not the others.Player does the build, DM has editing and veto power.
Two things to watch out for- the cohort should not be a "crafting machine". Dont allow the cohort to just be a tool to make mgaic items cheap for the PC's. Potions, sure, why not?
And, did you actually mean ALL four PC's are gonna get Leadership?!?
You need to control the number of figures on the board during battles or they will bog down like crazy.
I have a limit on leadership when I GM at times, however if I had enough free time to adjust encounters to account for it then I would count them as a part of the APL.
I stole a 3.0 version from a friend's failing campaign that allows a PC to make certain details with the caveat that the more they chose the wimpier the NPC. As it is screwy levels into the realms of subjective, I won;t even look it up. The true basis worked in game for the most part (One player wanted a laundry list for a 'Healer and got a Druid that had CLW everyday. The other really just wanted a squire for his Paladin and got a rabidly devoted, lesser Paladin that ultimately 'died' to save his hero.)
I still search for a fair but not unbalanced system. Maybe a 3PP will sate my search.
I just let the player design him according to whatever rules our particular campaign goes by (usable books, house rules, etc.) Typically I'd say a cohort is 10-pt buy for abilities and has maybe half-wealth for his level (he's a follower for a reason!)
Then I'll check him out and approve him or suggest changes.
In my experience, players usually want a cohort that fills something missing in the party ("we have no arcane characters! My cohort is a wizard"), or they want someone to do some crafting.
Generally, I'd only allow one player to have a cohort, just to keep things from bogging down; of course, there are exceptions to every rule.
Sometimes I'll have creatures or people in a campaign who are put there as *potential* cohorts, and of course powerful PCs might have a monster cohort; we had an archmage in a previous campaign who had a Couatl cohort, for example... kind of cool.