|
So, over in Monstrous Mount (Feat) I asked why you would take the Monstrous Mount feat rather than just using Leadership to ride a Griffon that's actually a Griffon, rather than some sort of Pseudo-Griffon thing, that looks like a griffon and has some griffon abilities, but isn't even a magical beast.
Some people seemed really offended at the idea of using leadership at all, because of the fact that it's so good. But It's good for everyone; so I have a hard time seeing what the problem is (except in very large groups, where having so many combatants would make things run very slow).
So I thought I would start a general discussion topic about it.
What's the big deal?
The way I see it, around level 7, the PCs get to build/recruit a bunch of supporting characters to round out the cast, so to speak, and cover any obvious weaknesses the party has, and I as GM, just take into account that the party now consists of 4 level 7 characters and 4 level 5 characters when I determine the difficulty of the encounters to throw at them.
I've not had it break my campaigns, or anything like that, it's not like they're getting unlimited wishes or any such shenanigans, they've just recruited a few more PCs. So now I get to throw scarier crap at them. Maybe they get to take on a dragon at a lower level. Maybe a small group of enemies is now a large group. Maybe I raise the levels of some badass NPCs, to make them extra scary, because now the players won't all just die.
As a player: Do my builds basically always include leadership? Sure. Cohorts are fun. I get to have a sidekick, or kickass mount/pet. Everyone else can take one too; and I can't even fathom why they wouldn't want to (to repeat myself, cohorts are fun, and cool, and round out party flaws, and make the party more awesome).
So why does leadership seem to be so upsetting to some people?
I personally have no problem with it in home games. Then again, I'm the only one that uses it should I get the chance to play. Oddly, no other players have bothered to use it so far.
Granted, I house rule that if you have an eidolon, you shouldn't have a cohort (though you could use followers or support roles).
It isn't legal in pathfinder society play, and I can see why as the sessions are supposed to be short.
My guesses include -
1 - Disrupts action economy. Too much like adding more PCs, and without a mini on the table a GM might just forget all about the cohort....until they pop up again.
2 - Easy cheat for formulae or spell book copying. Have a wizard with a wizard cohort? Guess who is trading spells. The rest of the party could play whatever, and this still effectively doubles the allotted gains for the alchemist, wizard, arcanist, witch, whatever. To some GMs, that may feel like someone is cheating on a test.
3. - Stealing more limelight. A player that uses leadership to gain a bunch of followers can suddenly overshadow a group. Even if the followers do nothing more than become an information network in a city, or carry all of the PCs stuff or messages outside of cities. You have become the PC that has informants, guards, and other NPCs that could change how a campaign is run because of it.
Granted, if the group is very small, cohorts should be a good option to help things out.
Also, I'm used to some RPGs where people could choose backgrounds that let them command armies...at character generation. Exalted (from White Wolf) not only let you buy a background that has you leading an army, you could take a power path that lets you go into any village, and raise an almost inhumanly efficient army within a few weeks. GURPs gave you backgrounds that include influence, wealth, and prestige of some sort. They might not be an army, yet it is conceivable that you could use such advantages to justify one at character creation.
In short, some GMs are used to it and can deal with it. Some players are responsible and can be trusted with such toys. Some GMs are easily blindsided by such things and are frustrated by it. Some players are highly abusive with such toys, and can't be trusted with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure, other than comments I've seen where people grow unhappy if there are too many critters on the board.
We've used cohorts/henchmen since forever; everyone had a few hirelings or henchmen or horses or whatever. It didn't bog anything down for us and everyone seemed to enjoy it.
|
|
I've never had too many problems with people and freaky-non-human cohorts, just like I've never had a problem handling a monstrous PC.
You want a demon cohort, or to play a pseudodragon wizard? We can probably work something out.
I've also played a few odd things, back in my 3.5 days Pseudodragon Wizard, Awakened Monkey Bard, Blink Dog Monk. They were pretty fun. Not what I want to play all the time, but every once in a while, why not.
And of course, monstrous humanoids have come up so often they aren't even weird anymore. Kobolds, Troglodytes, Lizardfolk, All manner of Goblinoids, Various Types of Orc, Minotaurs, Ogres and Ogre Magi.
Obviously not all of these can mesh with any given plot, and I have said no to things and made everyone play from a limited list of demihumans, but mechanically, figuring out how to allow you to play a succubus sorcerer that isn't broken and doesn't suck isn't all that hard to do. Fitting it into my campaign? That can be trickier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the biggest "hacks" for leadership seems to be crafting: collect NPC-classed creatures with Craft feats to suddenly have lots of people crafting all sorts of stuff for you, saving you time and money.
This is not a problem for all interpretations of the feat, for all groups, or for all playstyles. It is certainly one of the top contenders for the hatred.
Also what KestrelZ said.
That said, I love me some leadership. It's always disappointing when a player doesn't take it, or when I'm not allowed to do so.
|
|
One of the biggest "hacks" for leadership seems to be crafting: collect NPC-classed creatures with Craft feats to suddenly have lots of people crafting all sorts of stuff for you, saving you time and money.
This is not a problem for all interpretations of the feat, for all groups, or for all playstyles. It is certainly one of the top contenders for the hatred.
Also what KestrelZ said.
That said, I love me some leadership. It's always disappointing when a player doesn't take it, or when I'm not allowed to do so.
Hmm.
I can see how using it to break your WBL would cause problems.
And obviously, cohorts with leadership are problematic.
As for being like adding in another PC, I think that's sortof the idea. I guess I just don't see that as a problem (you definitely need to keep track of them though, likewise for animal companions "Waitaminute, how did your wolf climb out of the pit 10 minutes ago!").
Spell-list sharing: if your group has two wizard PCs, that would also happen.
Overshadowing: If the other PCs want an extra PC worth of screentime, they just have to build their cohort and take the feat and they'll get it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that I disagree, but it's worth noting that the primary problem with Crafting + Leadership is the crafting rules rather than the leadership ones. The removal of XP as a component of crafting effectively broke the door wide open in terms of what can be made and by whom.
I do love crafting, however, and Leadership. And my own is internally censored, as I'm rather obsessive about blinging out my followers.
(Heck, in Kingmaker, my King character has the worst items of anyone, because he keeps buying/making/giving away other items to everyone else. Also, every member of the government has a Ring of Sustenance that also allows Keep Watch once per day. :D)
yeah leadership is broken just because of crafting shenanigans.
Frankly I Like having a single character in the party who has the leadership feat. However if it is done simply as a power play, a very easy thing to do since its only a single feat. I truly hate it. So I really like that it is GM approval. Monstrous mount is a nice stand in for that. your only replacing a mechanic you already have, and its still flavorful.
Frankly, its easy to game the system with certain things, and the leadership feat is probably the easiest to game. And I've found that for my players, the temptation is often to big and the abandonment of roleplaying aspects is usually immanent.
Speaking as a DM, I generally frown on or outright ban leadership, but the main reason is I tend to run large groups, six or seven players usually, and already have enough trouble with combat taking forever and making sure that everyone gets opportunities to feel awesome.
Other than that, as people have mentioned above, when you already have players of differing skill levels, having one player with two characters built to a higher optimization level than the rest of the party can get really unfun for everyone.
Put another way, it is not inherently broken, but it can magnify existing problems.
|
|
pcs can take leadership in my campaign but well, they do typical npc stuffs as in go and do some little sidequests. Not so much for crafting.
What if they recruit the guy in town who commissions magic items for people as their leadership cohort? :P
But yeah. I dont know many GMs who disallow leadership, and personally I generally encourage all of the PCs to take it (unless there are 7PCs, then I'm inclined to generally ban it - I'd still allow it for mounts).
RABBLE!!! RABBLE RABBLE!!!
It's not that Leadership always ruins things and is OP, it's just incredibly easy to ruin things and be OP.
Much like the Summoner, in that regard.
Wait? What were we talking about in here again?
In all seriousness, I've never had leadership give me issues in my games, even at high levels. The only restrictions I put on the choices are that you must have talked to that character in game before you leveled and took the feat, that they are your follower not your b~+$~ (ie they are going to follow you around, not go be your gopher), or that your follower is a monstrous mount.
It always works out well.
|
pcs can take leadership in my campaign but well, they do typical npc stuffs as in go and do some little sidequests. Not so much for crafting.What if they recruit the guy in town who commissions magic items for people as their leadership cohort? :P
But yeah. I dont know many GMs who disallow leadership, and personally I generally encourage all of the PCs to take it (unless there are 7PCs, then I'm inclined to generally ban it - I'd still allow it for mounts).
Very simple, they can hire him but even if they order a magical item, they still need the item transported to them. Which usually is the biggest problem for them. The cohort don't walk around with the PCs in my setting.
I guess it all depends on the player and the campaign. Typically, I don't take it - the story is about the main characters and should remain focused on them.
But then, in my current campaign, due to the nature of the campaign, we weren't to know what other players were playing before the start of the campaign. It turns out we all made Charismatic characters (we have successfully talked our way out of about half our encounters) - each with a specific reason to have Leadership.
For example, my character is a nascent God - I need followers. Or another character is a burgeoning Pirate Lord, and Leadership is the loyal crew of his fleet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some GMs let leadership conjure up cohorts with a special player designed build and maybe even full wealth. Such a ruling leads to severe brokenness.
Some GMs let leadership turn any eligible NPC into a cohort, but do not allow conjuring. This can still be risky and lead to trouble, but less so.
Some GMs only let specific NPCs qualify as being a cohorts or followers. This is the most balanced approach, but it can also feel like the PC burnt a feat for a story ally. Now if the GM wouldn't have given you the ally without the feat, then this can be the preferred approach. This is how all my groups run it and we have never had to ban leadership. But it is also taken rarely because most could not fit it into their builds.
Much has already been said but here's my take:
1) It's not good for everyone, and many of the classes that benefit more from it are classes that really don't need a huge power boost (sorcerer, Oracle and paladin). I "fix" this by basing it on your highest mental stat rather than charisma.
2) What to do with followers. Not all players want to get into managing small towns and forts. If everyone is invested that great. If not, it can take entire sessions to manage a settlement and if half the players are bored to death with it your really doing the table a disservice. Also Witches with the covent hex can do some xrazy things with followers.
3) Crafting is gigantic. It's one thing if a PC chooses to break wbl with crafting, it's totally different if you have a non-adventuring minion do it. Many items are so easy to craft even the base level 5 minion would be able to craft for months before you ran out of things to craft.
4) Time. This can be anywhere from a non issue to extremely Disruptive depending on the system mastery of your players. It's like letting a player play a master summoner. It COULD be perfectly fine, but 75% of players can't run one efficiently.
5) Action econmy. Your greatest resource is action economy, this is why guides rate improved familiar so high, not so much that they are great but they completely break action economy for you. Anything that breaks that throws a serious wrench into gameplay, but doesn't necessarily break the game.
I usually only allow leadership if they are using it to pick up a mount and are willing to forgo followers, it fits the style of game I'm playing (kingdom building type game which I enjoy running occassionally) or there are 4 players or less in my campaign, which hasn't happened in many years now.
Very simple, they can hire him but even if they order a magical item, they still need the item transported to them. Which usually is the biggest problem for them. The cohort don't walk around with the PCs in my setting.pcs can take leadership in my campaign but well, they do typical npc stuffs as in go and do some little sidequests. Not so much for crafting.What if they recruit the guy in town who commissions magic items for people as their leadership cohort? :P
But yeah. I dont know many GMs who disallow leadership, and personally I generally encourage all of the PCs to take it (unless there are 7PCs, then I'm inclined to generally ban it - I'd still allow it for mounts).
By the time they are eligible for leadership, various forms of transport magic are freely available. Sounds like your players just need a bit more creativity more than anything.
The idea of a campaign that ever returns "home" or spends appreciable amounts of time not chasing the plot hook is rather alien to me.Very simple, they can hire him but even if they order a magical item, they still need the item transported to them. Which usually is the biggest problem for them. The cohort don't walk around with the PCs in my setting.pcs can take leadership in my campaign but well, they do typical npc stuffs as in go and do some little sidequests. Not so much for crafting.What if they recruit the guy in town who commissions magic items for people as their leadership cohort? :P
But yeah. I dont know many GMs who disallow leadership, and personally I generally encourage all of the PCs to take it (unless there are 7PCs, then I'm inclined to generally ban it - I'd still allow it for mounts).
If all your campaigns are a constant rush with no downtime, I can see how you might have different views on crafting cohorts.
As always i stick by the must use published APs as a baseline, and most APs having a crafting cohort is extremely feasible. Some games have a lot more downtime then others, but I've rarely seen a game where the party doesn't end up with a central base of operation eventually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- It's too much cheese for one feat.
- Most gaming tables have the one player run two characters (PC and cohort) which causes some metagaming problems with unexplained precision and synchronization.
- It effectively allows a character to benefit from two classes in many ways.
===================
That said, I disallow the Leadership feat in my games
*BUT*
As an appropriate consequence for in-game activity, I give the Leadership feat, for free, with caveats.
Let me give an example:
The party is now level 9. They've just saved a town from some serious bad mojo, and are now well-known heroes of the region. The town offers them the good life, and convince them to stay awhile.
At this point, I encourage the players to come up with things they can do in town - start a business, join a guild or community, start up a local branch of their church, etc. I say this with intent of them having some loyal NPCs who will help and represent them in these endeavors (a la Leadership). I jot down their ideas and take them away for my "homework".
By next gaming session, I've phoned or emailed the players to get their approval or advice on what they get. I make the leadership cohorts (I choose who approaches them, because as GM I run the world) and list off the minor NPCs. These cohorts do not join them on adventures, but rather run their businesses and lead the NPCs in support activities. The PCs thus get the following from these NPCs:
- Influence which slowly grows over time (reflected by the Leadership score increases).
- A safe haven run by fanatically loyal followers.
- Steady reoccurring income (the NPCs donate a percentage to the PC) in the form of goods, services and wealth (Craft skills, etc).
- Dedicated crafters (caster Cohorts, Adept NPCs) who build what they can, upon request, for almost no profit (living expenses only).
- A group of fanatical characters to send on minor missions, such as gathering information, transporting stuff, making a bunch of weapons to help arm a town you're helping against Orcs, provide reinforcements, hold some territory as a garrison, and so on.
- Can have many more than just the numbers dictated by the Leadership score... but the Leadership score says exactly how many you can truly trust. For example, you could have built a mercenary band of 300 strong, but according to your leadership score (13) only one officer (9th level cohort) and 11 NPCs are truly loyal to you above all else. The rest are there for their own reasons, don't donate or craft on the cheap, and may or may not be trustworthy.
If something happens where the Cohort(s) or NPCs end up in a fight, I (the GM) usually play them. Sometimes I hand the character sheet to some other player and have them play the cohort after some brief coaching as to the cohort's goals and tactics. I never let a player play both their PC and their cohort - it's incestuous.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some GMs let leadership conjure up cohorts with a special player designed build and maybe even full wealth. Such a ruling leads to severe brokenness.
This is basically what I usually do, and have not had any problems. I let the player build it, but I do look it over and they have to get the okay from me first. It's not instantly conjured though. Once I've approved both the concept and the build, they have to wait until I manage to work it in, some time in the next couple sessions.
Some GMs let leadership turn any eligible NPC into a cohort, but do not allow conjuring. This can still be risky and lead to trouble, but less so.
I of course also allow them to add in NPCs who could make sense as cohorts. I would also probably let them adjust the NPCs build so long as they kept with the concept.
Some GMs only let specific NPCs qualify as being a cohorts or followers. This is the most balanced approach, but it can also feel like the PC burnt a feat for a story ally. Now if the GM wouldn't have given you the ally without the feat, then this can be the preferred approach. This is how all my groups run it and we have never had to ban leadership. But it is also taken rarely because most could not fit it into their builds.
Well, given that there is a reasonably high chance that there is no NPC around that they *WANT* as a cohort, and that they can't assume there will be an NPC worth keeping around when they're designing their character build at level 1, that's not much of a surprise. If there's not a decent NPC for them, they raised their CHA at the expense of something else, which is highly unfortunate. In such a campaign, I'd consider it if I had a CHA class already, then I'm only out the feat.
1) It's not good for everyone, and many of the classes that benefit more from it are classes that really don't need a huge power boost (sorcerer, Oracle and paladin). I "fix" this by basing it on your highest mental stat rather than charisma.
This is true. I would prefer if ability scores did not factor into it at all, so that they would be equally good for all character classes.
2) What to do with followers. Not all players want to get into managing small towns and forts. If everyone is invested that great. If not, it can take entire sessions to manage a settlement and if half the players are bored to death with it your really doing the table a disservice. Also Witches with the covent hex can do some crazy things with followers.
Hmm. The with thing is a good point, and as for managing forts, if the players don't want to, they shouldn't be forced to take on the cohorts.
3) Crafting is gigantic. It's one thing if a PC chooses to break wbl with crafting, it's totally different if you have a non-adventuring minion do it. Many items are so easy to craft even the base level 5 minion would be able to craft for months before you ran out of things to craft.
Breaking WBL is problematic to be sure. Our games typically don't have a ton of downtime, and I don't make it too difficult to get the items they want, so the players themselves don't usually take the crafting feats.
4) Time. This can be anywhere from a non issue to extremely Disruptive depending on the system mastery of your players. It's like letting a player play a master summoner. It COULD be perfectly fine, but 75% of players can't run one efficiently.
This is true. some people take forever to decide what they do on their turns. I have in the past (with players who take forever) instituted time limits on turns.
5) Action econmy. Your greatest resource is action economy, this is why guides rate improved familiar so high, not so much that they are great but they completely break action economy for you. Anything that breaks that throws a serious wrench into gameplay, but doesn't necessarily break the game.
Okay, but Imp. Familiar screws with the action Economy, because it's a familiar. Same with an Animal Companion or Eidolon or Summon. Leadership doesn't; because I am going to be adding additional monsters to compensate for the cohort in encounters, as though it was an additional PC of its level.
I usually only allow leadership if they are using it to pick up a mount and are willing to forgo followers, it fits the style of game I'm playing (kingdom building type game which I enjoy running occassionally) or there are 4 players or less in my campaign, which hasn't happened in many years now.
Hmm. okay.
|
|
- It's too much cheese for one feat.
I do agree it's better than most feat choices you could make. I just don't see that as a problem in this particular case, because as mentioned, everyone can take leadership.
Most gaming tables have the one player run two characters (PC and cohort) which causes some metagaming problems with unexplained precision and synchronization.
My experience is that they generally control the cohort in combat, while the GM plays the cohort out of combat. Or am I missing your point?
It effectively allows a character to benefit from two classes in many ways.
The idea is that each player is benefitting from two classes. But yes, I covered that above with "rounds out party weaknesses". I consider that to be a good thing.
NPC Allies
That sounds like a good way to work in some side characters for plot development, and the follower aspect can be fun. Not "I'm a Dragon-Mounted-Paladin" or "Succubus-Advisor-For-The-Wizard" fun, but fun nonetheless.
Cohorts are also good if you're running a world without easy access to resurrections. If your character dies, you can level up the cohort twice; and that can be you new character (if it's smart enough) and then you design a new cohort to use for that character. Your new character is already tied into the party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think leadership id always a problem but it can be a problem for reasons already mentioned. I normally allow it but if everyone wants it then I tell the players there is a limit on how many people are in the party so they can decide who gets it.
|
|
But okay, so to try to sum up why some people have said they don't like it, and why I think it's awesome and should just be accepted as standard issue (not that I'm going to actually convince anyone on the internet to change their opinion.) ;)
Complaints
1. It's too powerful for a feat.
- True, a feat is not the best way it could have been handled.
2. Using it with crafting rules to break WBL.
- Okay, I can see how this use is problematic, particularly in campaigns with lots of downtime. It's basically a nonissue in a game on a timeline though. In my personal games, a houserule I already have would result in cheaper disposable items, and some alternate equipment, but it wouldn't increase their actual power. But for others? I can see how it could be problematic.
3. Too Slow!
- Fair enough. I've told my (at the time) girlfriend she wasn't allowed to play a caster anymore unless she learned what all her spells did and could decide her turn in 30 seconds. From that point on she mostly played spell-less Rangers. I can't imagine allowing such a player to run TWO casters. That being said, if you make sure the players know what they're doing (or put a time limit on turns), I know I can handle controlling a conjuration specialist, an improved familiar, a wildshaping druid, and an animal companion, at less than 30 seconds per creature. You just need to know what your abilities do.
4. Action Economy
- But unlike a familiar, animal companion, or eidolon, I as the DM am going to add more opponents because of the party's increased number; so it should have a net effect of 0 on the game's action economy.
5. Some people don't want to deal with the attached followers.
- I suppose RAW there's nothing that says you can ignore the followers, but those followers could just be people who hi-five you when you get back from an adventure.
6. You're basically getting to play two characters.
- Sure, but so can everyone else. I just don't see that as a problem.
7. Witches + Coven Followers
- I haven't had this particular issue come up yet, or looked into it much.
8. People often want things not on the official list, that takes work and some game design skills to accommodate, or you have to just say no.
- Fair enough.
9. Spell-Sharing at no additional cost.
- Two PC Wizards would do the same thing, I don't view it as a very big deal, but fair enough.
10. Different Levels of Optimization.
- Your players who are good at optimizing aren't willing to help the players who are less good at it build awesome characters/upgrade characters that are sub-awesome? I mean, I guess I can see how it could happen, but the players would have to not want to help eachother, or not want help. Class Guides are really good for a new player.
Awesomeness
1. You can get cool monsters as pets, and they're not just imitations of the ones in the bestiary. Additionally, those pets actually level with you, unlike some things.
2. You can take on a new character specifically to round out weaknesses in the party.
3. You (sortof) get to play as two characters (*and so does everyone else if they want to)
4. If your character is killed off, or you want to retire him, there's already a new character integrated into the party that you can play. (Only applies if the GM allows you to build your own cohort - otherwise you'll basically never want to take over the NPC.)
5. You can have a bunch of followers and start using them to build your own town. They're all kindof pathetic, but it can make for a fun minigame in a campaign.
6. Because of the increased party size & strength; I the GM can have you guys face off against cooler enemies (or cooler encounters, at least) earlier, and you guys can have a much bigger kill count as a party, which makes you feel more like badasses as the name of your party starts to garner its reputation.
-----
@boring7
Fair enough. Coming up with rules to accomodate monstrous characters is something I've done a lot of, so at this point I tend to find it pretty straightforward. Of course, how I would handle it these days is not the same as how I would have handled it back in 2007 (Savage Species Style, except adjusted so you're at least getting a HD and skills and BAB every level), whereas these days I would be inclined to try other approaches if possible.
-----
@wraithstrike
I can see why you would want to limit the overall party size, combat can get pretty bogged down, particularly if everyone doesn't know what they're doing; and especially if you have multiple people playing pet classes or conjurers.
-----
[edit]
Oh, as for a couple comments up: When I said "I don't make it too difficult to get the items they want" I mean, they players have access to any printed magic enhancements they can afford.
I've shifted it almost entirely from shopping to just being baked into character advancement. Disposable items are still shopping. Mundane gear is still shopping. And you can pick up alternate enhanced equipment (deactivating some of your now inherent enhancements to activate your new magic sword that does something different)
Not that I disagree, but it's worth noting that the primary problem with Crafting + Leadership is the crafting rules rather than the leadership ones. The removal of XP as a component of crafting effectively broke the door wide open in terms of what can be made and by whom.
The XP issue, in my experience is a minor one. Gold and time have always been the primary limiting factors for item creation. The XP cost never gets high enough to be the prime factor.
And yes, I have let a PC have a cohort to do his item crafting. She made some good stuff, but the effect wasn't a game breaking at all.
|
|
@anlashok - The only homebrew fixes I suggested were making it not tied to an ability score, and not asking you to give up a feat for it. None of the fixes I suggested were to bring it in line with other feats, but to actually make it better (for the people it is currently less good for).
You will want a +6 by level 20 if you have a pet, and a +4 if you don't, but you can accomplish all of that with your reputation and a base of operations, and not "move around a lot".
Otherwise, your cohort lags behind if you're not a CHA class.
@Alleran - Correct. Albeit a PC at a lower level who comes in with NPC WBL instead of PC WBL. The way I see it nobody is saying it's worth "a feat", the point is a way to give you an option to take something instead of it if for some reason you would rather have a small amount of additional power in a single character instead. If you would prefer to not have a cohort, you can trade your cohort for a feat.
@Bill Dunn - That's good to know. So even the craft cohort isn't necessarily a huge problem.
I'm just curious where that cohort is getting all that XP.
(Also, in 3.5, the caster level limits, and stricter requirements meant that you had fewer extraneous options.)
And yes, I have let a PC have a cohort to do his item crafting. She made some good stuff, but the effect wasn't a game breaking at all.
In case it wasn't clear, this is true for me as well.
I can see why it's a problem for some, but it doesn't come up in our games as an issue.
|
|
Action economy only matters if your PCs can shoot through resources like crazy without having to worry about running out of them (either in that day's events because they're apparently sleeping after every fight, or in general because their expensive wands of haste and whatnot can be replaced).
But I do end up in a lot of wealth-starved games.
Eww... Wealth-Starved Games.
Well, that creates huge class imbalances.
The more I play Pathfinder, the more I come to the conclusion that WBL needs to be treated as a rule, not a guideline. That's a big chunk of why in the games I GM I've done away with WBL in favor of a comparable replacement system that's baked into character advancement.
If I anticipate a wealth starved game, I do to shelter myself from it - taking solace in spellcasting classes with pets so I'm not getting as much of a raw deal. Synthesist is also good in such a game.
As for being able to easily replace your expensive wands of haste, that causes some problems if you can replace them too quickly, yeah. If it's going to take you 4-6 8 hour sessions to catch up for that difference, then its not so bad.
Action economy only matters if your PCs can shoot through resources like crazy without having to worry about running out of them (either in that day's events because they're apparently sleeping after every fight, or in general because their expensive wands of haste and whatnot can be replaced).
But I do end up in a lot of wealth-starved games.
Ha, hahaha. No, action economy matters if you want to be able to buff and fight or just fight. Action economy matters if you want to move or full attack. Action economy matters if you want to kill the bad guy before he kills you or if you want to let you friend bleed out.
Cohorts can help with all of those without burning extra resources.
|
|
Action economy only matters if your PCs can shoot through resources like crazy without having to worry about running out of them (either in that day's events because they're apparently sleeping after every fight, or in general because their expensive wands of haste and whatnot can be replaced).
But I do end up in a lot of wealth-starved games.
Ha, hahaha. No, action economy matters if you want to be able to buff and fight or just fight. Action economy matters if you want to move or full attack. Action economy matters if you want to kill the bad guy before he kills you or if you want to let you friend bleed out.
Cohorts can help with all of those without burning extra resources.
Except that because of those cohorts, you should have improved action economy to contend with from your enemies as well.
Except that because of those cohorts, you should have improved action economy to contend with from your enemies as well.Action economy only matters if your PCs can shoot through resources like crazy without having to worry about running out of them (either in that day's events because they're apparently sleeping after every fight, or in general because their expensive wands of haste and whatnot can be replaced).
But I do end up in a lot of wealth-starved games.
Ha, hahaha. No, action economy matters if you want to be able to buff and fight or just fight. Action economy matters if you want to move or full attack. Action economy matters if you want to kill the bad guy before he kills you or if you want to let you friend bleed out.
Cohorts can help with all of those without burning extra resources.
I agree completely. I was laughing at the idea that action economy was only an advantage if it was an "5-minute workday" tool. I reject that notion on its face.
The way I see it, around level 7, the PCs get to build/recruit a bunch of supporting characters to round out the cast, so to speak, and cover any obvious weaknesses the party has, and I as GM, just take into account that the party now consists of 4 level 7 characters and 4 level 5 characters when I determine the difficulty of the encounters to throw at them.
You could say that about anything grotesquely overpowered. If there was a cheap magic item that doubled the hit points and damage output of a PC, you could compensate by adding more monsters, but it doesn't make this hypothetical item an example of good game balance.
If you're just wanting to run an adventure path with minimal prep time, anything that requires you to adjust all the encounters is a problem. (Though optimizers can already put you in that position without Leadership.)
It's also a problem if some players don't want Leadership ("I don't want the hassle of keeping track of two character sheets..."), because not taking it is crippling, relatively speaking. "Well, I could take Weapon Focus to increase my attack roll by 1 with one weapon, or I could have a Bard who follows me around all day." And if you're the only guy without Leadership, you get half as much table time as everyone else.
In a game where everyone takes Leadership, that's not a problem, but it means that every battle takes twice as long, moving miniatures around while exploring a map takes longer, everyone gets in each other's way in tight dungeon corridors, etc.
|
|
You could say that about anything grotesquely overpowered. If there was a cheap magic item that doubled the hit points and damage output of a PC, you could compensate by adding more monsters, but it doesn't make this hypothetical item an example of good game balance.
Except that the CR rules tell you what to adjust based on the number of PCs and average party level. So APL is likely going to work out to 1 less than it was before, while the number of PCs has doubled.
If you're just wanting to run an adventure path with minimal prep time, anything that requires you to adjust all the encounters is a problem. (Though optimizers can already put you in that position without Leadership.)
The same happens if you have any more or less than 4 players though.
It's also a problem if some players don't want Leadership ("I don't want the hassle of keeping track of two character sheets..."), because not taking it is crippling, relatively speaking. "Well, I could take Weapon Focus to increase my attack roll by 1 with one weapon, or I could have a Bard who follows me around all day." And if you're the only guy without Leadership, you get half as much table time as everyone else.
Hmm. I suppose. But pathfinder lets you choose crappy options all the time. There are all kinds of crappy trap feats and the like, and some classes (rogue) are just worse options than basically everything else. If I wanted to I could also build with leadership, and build two Warriors (one as cohort) that dump everything but CHA. There's nothing making anyone avoid the options that are less good or even that are terrible in this game. I remember seeing an anti-optimization thread where people came up with ways to hit -52 to hit.
In a game where everyone takes Leadership, that's not a problem, but it means that every battle takes twice as long, moving miniatures around while exploring a map takes longer, everyone gets in each other's way in tight dungeon corridors, etc.
Yes, battles will take longer. Wait, you move minis to explore a map? We just declare what marching formation is and just say where we go, up until combat starts.
Except that the CR rules tell you what to adjust based on the number of PCs and average party level. So APL is likely going to work out to 1 less than it was before, while the number of PCs has doubled.
You could say that about anything grotesquely overpowered. If there was a cheap magic item that doubled the hit points and damage output of a PC, you could compensate by adding more monsters, but it doesn't make this hypothetical item an example of good game balance.
I'm not saying it's difficult to work out the correct APL. I'm saying that, as a rule of thumb, any option that's so powerful it forces the GM to boost every encounter is an overpowered option.
But pathfinder lets you choose crappy options all the time. There are all kinds of crappy trap feats and the like, and some classes (rogue) are just worse options than basically everything else.
There's a difference between a bad option that no-one normally takes, and an option that's so much better than every other option that everyone feels they have to take it. Feats that look extremely powerful in a non-Leadership game (like Craft Wondrous Item in any campaign with downtime) still pale in comparison to Leadership (since you can make your cohort a crafter).
Wait, you move minis to explore a map? We just declare what marching formation is and just say where we go, up until combat starts.
Yup - both the Pathfinder gaming groups I've been in moved minis around to explore a map (though not in any initiative order). So when someone stands on the pressure plate that triggers a fireball that hurts everyone within fifteen feet and breaks open the ceiling and the crocodiles fall into the rapidly flooding room from the river above, you know where everyone stands.
If you like games where everyone controls two characters, why not simply start out by saying 'everyone make two PCs'? Why make it a feat?
I allow my players to take leadership, with a few small "fixes":
1) Cohorts can only be selected from among the NPCs who populate the world, not summoned.
2) The cohorts are NPCs, and I run them, in and out of combat. They are loyal, but won't work in perfect harmony with the PC's wishes.
3) Max level of a cohort is party level x (2/3), round to nearest whole number. So at 7th level, you've still got your standard 5th level whatever, but he scales more slowly than the PCs level. I find that having, for example, a 7th level cohort in a party of 11th level PCs tends to focus minds about just how useful the squire/mount/manservant really is in combat. Once the party gets to around this level, the cohort's saves, if nothing else, are low enough relative to the party that he ends up being easy pickings for clever villains, and there are plenty of those in my world.
General lack of item crafting in the world (except for very high level NPCs) tends to shore up the rest of the potential problems with the feat. I wouldn't want to ban something like Leadership because it is heroic and fitting with certain character concepts, but it needs to be kept under control.
|
|
Hey, at least you're considering taking a feat that justifies getting a Cohort/mount.
You could have a GM that awakens the original Ranger pet on the GMPC (the GM's PC, as it is definitely not being played as an NPC), completely rebuilds the GMPC as a hunter (without downtime, GP cost, etc), and decides that the new build Hunter gets a new pet... and the original still follows the group around like normal. No leadership feat taken there.
Or the spouse-of-said-GM's character having a brother that makes magic items for him (without leadership feat), or said spouse having an alternate character that essentially has taken over a major city, crafts magic items, and generally interferes with the main group.
In any game, there is such a thing as too many characters. It just depends on how big of a role they play in the game.
At the very least, taking the Leadership feat is a token gesture I can wholly appreciate. Beyond that, having the common courtesy for your players to tone your cohort down if it rides shotgun, or better yet, have your cohort run your affairs the majority of the time back at "base", and occasionally accompany the party.
Personally, I would have no problem with every single person in a party of 4 taking Leadership, if the Cohorts weren't abused.
P.S. Pardon the rant.
Ouch. That sounds painful. And, I'm not actually. Haven't been in a Pathfinder game for about a year, and haven't run one since may. I usually end up running it rather than playing though; and my SOs don't get more free perks than anyone else does (I'm a pretty generous GM, and I will likely allow your Rakshasa Wizard if I can somehow incorporate it into my plot), but I don't give any perks to my SOs that the other players don't also have. Some of complained at me about not getting any in-game perks "What's the point of playing in your boyfriend's game over someone else's if you don't get preferential treatment!" and my response "There isn't one. Sorry babe." lol.
If you like games where everyone controls two characters, why not simply start out by saying 'everyone make two PCs'? Why make it a feat?
I have considered just saying: "Hey guys, once you hit level 7, you all need to build additional characters to incorporate into the party as cohorts."
I guess I like that it gives me a way to handle if 2 out of 5 PCs don't want cohorts (they get a feat) - maybe they should get something better than that, but I'm not sure what I would give them. It's kind of hard to match "I control two characters", as people have pointed out. But they did opt out of it, and people "Opt Out" of playing Oracles, Druids, Wizards, Arcanists, Shaman, and Summoners in order to play Rogues, and those things are supposedly (definitely not) equal choices too. You gotta feel bad for the rogue who wanted no cohort in a game with 4 spellcasters who took leadership though.
I guess, In a game where leadership exists, if they are opting out of the cohort, they are saying they do not want an even % of the main characters and are cool with just playing as 1/7 of the main cast rather than 2/8. They are still keeping up with the power per character, but opting out of some of the spotlight (and maybe that's their goal). If that's not their goal, and they want to have the same number of "turns" in combat, so to speak, without having another character who talks, then I would probably suggest they still take leadership, and have their cohort be something that doesn't talk or act intelligently, and something that is simple to play. Perhaps suggest an unfettered eidolon as a cohort. Then it can be whatever they want it to be.
|
|
I allow my players to take leadership, with a few small "fixes":
1) Cohorts can only be selected from among the NPCs who populate the world, not summoned.
2) The cohorts are NPCs, and I run them, in and out of combat. They are loyal, but won't work in perfect harmony with the PC's wishes.
3) Max level of a cohort is party level x (2/3), round to nearest whole number. So at 7th level, you've still got your standard 5th level whatever, but he scales more slowly than the PCs level. I find that having, for example, a 7th level cohort in a party of 11th level PCs tends to focus minds about just how useful the squire/mount/manservant really is in combat. Once the party gets to around this level, the cohort's saves, if nothing else, are low enough relative to the party that he ends up being easy pickings for clever villains, and there are plenty of those in my world.
General lack of item crafting in the world (except for very high level NPCs) tends to shore up the rest of the potential problems with the feat. I wouldn't want to ban something like Leadership because it is heroic and fitting with certain character concepts, but it needs to be kept under control.
Such a ruling quickly makes cohorts stop being cohorts and they become "stay in town" followers.
And this definitely stops short any ideas anyone might have about the viability of playing as a dragon/griffon-mounted knight/paladin, or a party of dragon/griffon-mounted characters. As you mention, their saves will be so terrible that you won't want to bring them into combat at the higher levels.
I'd have to run the numbers, but I think I would see leadership as a liability, not a feature, in your world, once you hit the higher levels of play.
Such a ruling quickly makes cohorts stop being cohorts and they become "stay in town" followers.
Not necessarily, though one has to be increasingly careful with them, yes...not unlike familiars. There is a ton of precedent in myth and fantasy literature for parties with a quite wide divergence in effective character levels. I don't think I should have to give examples of this.
And this definitely stops short any ideas anyone might have about the viability of playing as a dragon/griffon-mounted knight/paladin, or a party of dragon/griffon-mounted characters. As you mention, their saves will be so terrible that you won't want to bring them into combat at the higher levels.
I'd have to run the numbers, but I think I would see leadership as a liability, not a feature, in your world, once you hit the higher levels of play.
It does nip the super-pets in the bud, which is intended, though Paladins can still get their über mounts the old fashioned way, through Divine Bond. Do you really think the privilege of riding a dragon into combat should be available for purchase through a single feat? If your answer to that question is "yes", then we have serious philosophical differences, and should just leave it at that.
Trust me, Leadership under my rules is still a powerful feat. Having a 7th level cohort as an 11th level character is still worth a feat because 7th level characters are really powerful, but it is no longer a game/action economy-breaking feat.