One of my players wants to take the Leadership feat, but I have a few questions I'd like to clarify beforehand.
1) Is the cohort controlled by the GM or the player?
The book says the cohort is an "NPC with class levels".
Since NPC's are usually controlled by the GM, I'd guess that the cohort would also be controlled by the GM.
I really don't want the added hassle of having to control yet another creature.
Do you foresee any problems with just letting the PC control his own cohort?
2) When calculating leadership score, what constitutes as "causing" the death of the cohort/followers?
Here's the wording that's creating confusion (pg 129):
"caused the death of a cohort*" (*cumulative per cohort killed)
and
"caused the death of other followers"
My player interprets "caused the death..." to mean that he personally killed them or that his actions directly triggered an event that killed them (i.e. set off a trap).
I interpret "caused the death..." to mean that the cohort/followers were killed (due to monsters, traps, etc) while following his orders or because they followed him into a dangerous situation.
Which interpretation is accurate?
3) There's a -1 penalty for followers killed, but does it matter how MANY are killed? Is the death of 1 follower the same as the death of 100 followers? Is it a flat -1 penalty regardless of how many are killed? Or is there some sort of cumulative calculation like there is for the cohort?
4) A cohort is an NPC with class levels, so how would I create this?
Would I first create an NPC (Expert, Warrior, etc) and then just add class levels? How many NPC levels should he have? Would I use the ability scores for a "heroic" NPC or a "basic" NPC. I'm thinking heroic, but I want to make sure the NPC won't be way too strong.
5) The player in question is a Fighter and somewhat of a munchkin, so I'd like to discourage him from creating yet another melee character just to rack up the extra damage.
Any suggestions on how to handle this?
Sorry for the long post.
I appreciate your help!
One of my players wants to take the Leadership feat, but I have a few questions I'd like to clarify beforehand.
1) Is the cohort controlled by the GM or the player?
The book says the cohort is an "NPC with class levels".
Since NPC's are usually controlled by the GM, I'd guess that the cohort would also be controlled by the GM.
I really don't want the added hassle of having to control yet another creature.
Do you foresee any problems with just letting the PC control his own cohort?
This is up to you. In some parties, the GM controls the cohort, others let the player do it, and some find a middle ground. For my cohort, the cohort does as I desire until/unless the GM says otherwise.
2) When calculating leadership score, what constitutes as "causing" the death of the cohort/followers?
Here's the wording that's creating confusion (pg 129):
"caused the death of a cohort*" (*cumulative per cohort killed)
and
"caused the death of other followers"My player interprets "caused the death..." to mean that he personally killed them or that his actions directly triggered an event that killed them (i.e. set off a trap).
I interpret "caused the death..." to mean that the cohort/followers were killed (due to monsters, traps, etc) while following his orders or because they followed him into a dangerous situation.
Which interpretation is accurate?
Both, of course. But to be fair, this is something else to hash out between GM and player. Followers that go into dangerous situations that are over their heads (as regular followers do) are going to get killed. Cohorts tend to be more robust. If the leader ordered the followers into the Dungeon of PC Slaughtering, he was responsible for their deaths: they were ordered to go somewhere that would kill them. If they followed of their own will, may be a different story.
3) There's a -1 penalty for followers killed, but does it matter how MANY are killed? Is the death of 1 follower the same as the death of 100 followers? Is it a flat -1 penalty regardless of how many are killed? Or is there some sort of cumulative calculation like there is for the cohort?
Rules are quiet on this point. I'd suggest a value such as -1 per 10 followers killed, rounded up. Once in a while someone dies, that's the breaks. Lots of deaths means the leader is incompetent or doesn't value the lives of his people and no one wants to work for him.
4) A cohort is an NPC with class levels, so how would I create this?
Would I first create an NPC (Expert, Warrior, etc) and then just add class levels? How many NPC levels should he have? Would I use the ability scores for a "heroic" NPC or a "basic" NPC. I'm thinking heroic, but I want to make sure the NPC won't be way too strong.
You're trying to overthink this one I think. The table gives you the level for your cohort's levels. You can build them up to that level once you determine the leadership score for the character for cohorts. You also can have a monster join them of appropriate power level; examples are available in the book I believe or in the 3.5 DMG. Monsters don't need to have character levels. For the NPCs, I'd go ahead and give them the heroic stats. Basic NPC stats are really meant for people you aren't likely to pick a fight with or who are meant to be pushovers. Cohorts should be integral parts of the campaign, and so should be a little sturdier.
5) The player in question is a Fighter and somewhat of a munchkin, so I'd like to discourage him from creating yet another melee character just to rack up the extra damage.
Any suggestions on how to handle this?
Roleplay the meeting of the character and the potential cohort. Maybe the fighter can't get that barbarian to join up because the barbarian would-be cohort thinks the fighter, while great at combat, lacks any sort of code of personal honor and wouldn't be acceptable for the barbarian to work for/follow.
Leadership requires far more GM participation than any other feat. It's best used to help shore up weaknesses in the party by getting a cohort that does something that the party hasn't covered, e.g. supplying a cleric in a party with no bard or divine spellcaster. Your player has a say in things, but so does the GM.
Sorry for the long post.
...
|
1) Is the cohort controlled by the GM or the player?
The book says the cohort is an "NPC with class levels".
Since NPC's are usually controlled by the GM, I'd guess that the cohort would also be controlled by the GM.
I really don't want the added hassle of having to control yet another creature.
Do you foresee any problems with just letting the PC control his own cohort?
DM call. Some GM's allow the player to both create AND control the cohort. Others allow the player to control the cohort but the GM actually creates the cohort. Its up to you. Personally I prefer to create the cohort if I am the GM. I will have the player tell me what sort of NPC, in vague, setting (non-mechanical) terms such as "I'm looking for a powerful warrior who focuses on heavy armor and defensive capabilities who will defend my caster" or "I'm looking for a sorcerer who will blah blah" Then I craft the NPC, have the NPC show up at a point in the game that makes sense, then let the player control the cohort.. unless of course the player starts having the cohort do ridiculously suicidal stuff just to protect the PC with leadership. In some cases I will take over running the cohort if the circumstances call for the cohort to have a more story-driven component. So in short, its up to the GM how much or how little control or influence he wants over the cohort.
2) When calculating leadership score, what constitutes as "causing" the death of the cohort/followers?
Here's the wording that's creating confusion (pg 129):
"caused the death of a cohort*" (*cumulative per cohort killed)
and
"caused the death of other followers"My player interprets "caused the death..." to mean that he personally killed them or that his actions directly triggered an event that killed them (i.e. set off a trap).
I interpret "caused the death..." to mean that the cohort/followers were killed (due to monsters, traps, etc) while following his orders or because they followed him into a dangerous situation.
Which interpretation is accurate?
Again, a GM call, depending on the exact circumstances. However, I as a GM would consider "causing the death of.." to include sending the cohort into an exceptionally deadly situation that resulted in a followers death. In general I assume that the leadership score is negatively impacted by others in the world hearing that "The great and powerful BOB has lost many followers recently in a skirmish with the up-and-coming not yet great or powerful BILL. Since BOB lost a lot of men fighting BILL, perhaps BOB isn't so great afterall."
3) There's a -1 penalty for followers killed, but does it matter how MANY are killed? Is the death of 1 follower the same as the death of 100 followers? Is it a flat -1 penalty regardless of how many are killed? Or is there some sort of cumulative calculation like there is for the cohort?
I'd say its a flat -1, though if the leader continually loses followers I might make the penalty larger.
4) A cohort is an NPC with class levels, so how would I create this?
Would I first create an NPC (Expert, Warrior, etc) and then just add class levels? How many NPC levels should he have? Would I use the ability scores for a "heroic" NPC or a "basic" NPC. I'm thinking heroic, but I want to make sure the NPC won't be way too strong.
Create an NPC of whatever class and level is appropriate. You don't have to start with any NPC class levels, you can just use normal classes if you like. If it makes sense though that that particular cohort would be an aristocrat then use aristocrat levels. In most cases a PC seeking a cohort is not going to be terribly happy if the cohort shows up having all commoner levels though lol
As for ability scores, I don't see anything in the PFSRD or in the 3.5 SRD indicating one way or the other, but I vaguely seem to recall the 3.0 DMG may have had some guidelines on that. In either case, I'd probably use the elite array.
5) The player in question is a Fighter and somewhat of a munchkin, so I'd like to discourage him from creating yet another melee character just to rack up the extra damage.
Any suggestions on how to handle this?
Since the rules USED to say...
"A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment."
but now say...
"A cohort can be of any race or class."
It's somewhat vague on who determines what shows up, which to me means its up to the GM to determine if he wants to, or wants to let the player determine it. In the interests of not letting one already described munchkin steal/dominate any more "shine" time from other players, I recommend that you determine who and what shows up. If the player doesn't like it you can very easily tell him then to choose a different feat.
If he is ok with you deciding, then make the cohort for him and make the cohort not necessarily the perfect cover for the main characters weaknesses etc. Don't purposely gimp the cohort, you can still make a good NPC, but don't purposely gear it to perfectly cover for the PC's weaknesses. Also, be sure that the cohort has an interesting roleplaying reason for being there thus causing the munchkin player to have to interact with the cohort a lot. Have the cohort need something from the PC, such as help, or protection, or something. Make it interesting and not just another power for the munchkin to exploit.
Sometimes I have seen a player make a PC extremely strong in one area with the intent of having a cohort later who covers the weak areas. In effect, for the cost of one feat he makes his PC super-human.
1) Is the cohort controlled by the GM or the player?
The book says the cohort is an "NPC with class levels".
Since NPC's are usually controlled by the GM, I'd guess that the cohort would also be controlled by the GM.
I really don't want the added hassle of having to control yet another creature.
Do you foresee any problems with just letting the PC control his own cohort?
Yes and no.
The cohort is an NPC. The PC (note that I am talking about the character, not the player) has ZERO control over the cohort. It is not a summoned or dominated monster to whom the PC can give orders and have them followed automatically.
The cohort is a free-thinking individual who is there for reasons of his own (admires the PC, seeking his own fame, wants a mentor, whatever). As such, the PC has no control over him. The PC can ask the cohort to do things, or maybe even suggest that he'll find a new cohort if the current one isn't cooperative enough, but that's about it.
So, within that understanding, I have no objections to letting my players run their own cohorts. But they understand that I reserve the right to intervene any time I think they're abusing that privilege (accidentally or otherwise).
Ultimately, it's the DM who decides the cohort's actions, just like any other NPC, but I'd rather just leave it up to the player uless I feel the player is handling it badly.
So I merely reserve veto power.
2) When calculating leadership score, what constitutes as "causing" the death of the cohort/followers?
Here's the wording that's creating confusion (pg 129):
"caused the death of a cohort*" (*cumulative per cohort killed)
and
"caused the death of other followers"My player interprets "caused the death..." to mean that he personally killed them or that his actions directly triggered an event that killed them (i.e. set off a trap).
I interpret "caused the death..." to mean that the cohort/followers were killed (due to monsters, traps, etc) while following his orders or because they followed him into a dangerous situation.
Which interpretation is accurate?
I side with your player, which really means both of your definitions apply - certainly killing them yourself is bad for business, right?
Cohorts are volunteers. They join the PC willingly. It's hard to convince new cohorts to join you if you have a habit of taking them to dangerous places and failing to protect them. If you get a repution for being uncaring about the fate of your underlings, no new underlings will be eager to share the fates of their predecessors.
Think about it. In the Lord of the Rings, Gandalf recruits 8 companionsin Rivendell. Everyone was a volunteer. Suppose they all died before they ever got out of Moria. Suppose it wasn't even Gandalf's fault; they all just died of hypothermia, or orcs killed them, or trolls, or they fell into a chasm, or whatever. What would happen if Gandalf went back to Rivendell and asked for 8 more companions? Who would volunteer? Once he gets a reputation for losing companions, his fault or otherwise, he's going to find future volunteers extremely scarce.
And let's face it, this whole feat is about "reputation".
3) There's a -1 penalty for followers killed, but does it matter how MANY are killed? Is the death of 1 follower the same as the death of 100 followers? Is it a flat -1 penalty regardless of how many are killed? Or is there some sort of cumulative calculation like there is for the cohort?
No.
The penalty for dead cohorts is cumulative and it specifially says so. It says no such thing for followers, and this is not an accidental omission.
Think about it. A leader could have a small army. Consider a 12th level paladin who builds a small fortress somewhere. He might easily have a leadership score of 22:
75 level 1 soldiers
7 level 2 NCOs
4 level 3 sergeants
2 level 4 lieutenants
2 level 5 captains
1 level 6 commander
That's 91 followers. Now suppose a horde of orcs attacks. Just a couple hundred orcs might kill, oh, let's say half of those soldiers and maybe an officer or two. That's about 40 dead followers.
If the penalty were cumulative, the paladin's leadership score would drop to almost -20. He would have to rise to EPIC levels to have any chance to ever recruit even a single first level soldier.
The short answer is soldiers die. Followers die. But if the leader takes care of his troops, treats them fairly and generously, and has great renown for being powerful and maybe even a good commander, then more troops will come. Maybe not quite as many (the -1 penalty for losing followers), but they'll come.
4) A cohort is an NPC with class levels, so how would I create this?
Would I first create an NPC (Expert, Warrior, etc) and then just add class levels? How many NPC levels should he have? Would I use the ability scores for a "heroic" NPC or a "basic" NPC. I'm thinking heroic, but I want to make sure the NPC won't be way too strong.
No, you didn't have your players start as a warrior or an expert, so the NPC cohort shouldn't either. Classes are not ONLY for player characters - NPCs can have them too. So if the cohort is going to be a level 5 fighter, roll him up exactly like a level 5 PC fighter.
Whether or not to use Heroic ability scores is up to you. As for me, I am thinking that if the cohort was just as physically and mentally impressive as the adventurer he serves, he might as well become an adventurer himself. So I prefer cohorts to be made with fewer points than the PCs. Whatever you are using for the PCs, knock it down to the next tier for the cohorts. After all, it's his weaker ability scores that undermine his confidence in his ability to survive as an adventurer - without that underconfidence, he probably wouldn't want to settle for being a mere cohort.
5) The player in question is a Fighter and somewhat of a munchkin, so I'd like to discourage him from creating yet another melee character just to rack up the extra damage.
Any suggestions on how to handle this?
It probably doesn't matter.
Would you rather have him whip up a wizard to keep himself hasted, invisible, etc., for all those unlimited combat buffs? Would you rather have him roll a cleric to give him different buffs and keep him healed? Would you rather he roll a rogue to get flanking and decimate their enemies?
Really, no matter what he rolls up, it will make him more powerful. Frankly, I think a fighter selecting a melee cohort is the weakest choice he can make - why hire a guy who does a limited version of what you already do, but he's at least 2 levels lower?
And remember, the cohort chose this as a career path for a reason. Probably because he is weaker and less capable than a typical PC adventurer. Which means he'll be a little timid, and not at all happy about being forced into danger over his head. So play him that way, at least a little. Use your veto power as DM to keep that cohort in the roll of a helper, rather than in the roll of an extra party member.
But, don't undermine the player too badly. If you turn his fighter cohort into a coward who runs away at the start of every fight, then your player has wasted a feat. Don't punish him with a useless cohort, or even with a somewhat-useless cohort.
But don't let him punish you with a powerhouse cohort.
I think a better question is: exactly what constitutes "great renown", "fairness and generosity", and "special power"?
In particular, what the hell is special power? Don't most PCs have "special power"?
|
One of my players wants to take the Leadership feat, but I have a few questions I'd like to clarify beforehand.
1) Is the cohort controlled by the GM or the player?
Most groups let the player control the cohort. Technically it's an NPC though and under your control. I've seen some groups where the GMs let the players run the cohort but occasionally taken control because he doesn't think the cohort would do something (maybe something suicidal or against the cohorts alignment). Ultimately it's up to your to decide, it is an NPC so you can just make him an obedient and trustworth NPC you run.
Cohorts are NPCs and not slaves to the player character. Anything too unreasonable and they will refuse or even split at which point the player has to get a new follower next which might take a few days.
2) When calculating leadership score, what constitutes as "causing" the death of the cohort/followers?
Would a reasonable person consider the follower's death to be the result of the character's action or inaction? Did the player put the follower in an unreasonably dangerous situation? Did he do everything he could to save the follower?
A player who uses his cohort as a trap monkey is most certainly causing his death. To be honest if a player did something like this I would have the cohort leave him and the player wouldn't be able to get a new cohort until he returns to civilization at which point he learns he has a reputation for Cruelty which is a -2 penalty to his leadership score.
3) There's a -1 penalty for followers killed, but does it matter how MANY are killed? Is the death of 1 follower the same as the death of 100 followers? Is it a flat -1 penalty regardless of how many are killed? Or is there some sort of cumulative calculation like there is for the cohort?
It's a -2 penalty and it's "Cumulative per cohort killed." so if 2 get killed it's -4. If the player has lost multiple cohorts then the answer to the above question is almost certainly yes it does apply.
4) A cohort is an NPC with class levels, so how would I create this?
Would I first create an NPC (Expert, Warrior, etc) and then just add class levels? How many NPC levels should he have? Would I use the ability scores for a "heroic" NPC or a "basic" NPC. I'm thinking heroic, but I want to make sure the NPC won't be way too strong.
Usually cohorts are a little less powerful than the party. If the players used 20 point buy use 15 for the cohort, if they used 25 point buy use 20 point buy for the cohort. If the players rolled then maybe calculate the player in questions equivalent point buy and subtract 5 points. NPCs and cohorts are meant to be a little less powerful than PCs.
Much of this is up to you. You could give the NPC all NPC class levels but most cohorts have straight PC class levels.
5) The player in question is a Fighter and somewhat of a munchkin, so I'd like to discourage him from creating yet another melee character just to rack up the extra damage.
Any suggestions on how to handle this?
The Leadership feat is pretty open ended because it's potentially very powerful. Many GMs ban it for this reason.
I suggest you get an idea of what your player is looking for and sketch up a few NPCs then let him 'shop around'. Don't show him the character sheets, just role play the whole thing out. Always keep in mind that the cohort is an NPC with his own motivations.
|
|
I think a better question is: exactly what constitutes "great renown", "fairness and generosity", and "special power"?
This is all GM judgement. Much depends on the campaign world.
"great renown":
Has the party saved a village? Maybe the party bard spend some off time writing songs about the parties adventures and paid other bards to sing them? Perhaps one of the PCs paid to have a statue erected of himself saving the village?
For "fairness and generosity":
If the player has been role-playing a generous character who goes out of his way to help people whenever he gets the chance (beyond just biting on RP hooks) then he might fit the bill. Ultimately it's up to the GM. Does the player make a serious effort to help others? Does he donate his character resources to things that help others, maybe he's donated time or money to create a temple or he spends his down time curing sick children. This is mostly based on how your player role plays and whether he puts some effort into making his character a generous person, it doesn't even have to cost him much.
In particular, what the hell is special power? Don't most PCs have "special power"?
Yeah... this one is a little hard to define. It's purely GM discretion. I would suggest being a PC isn't enough though.
Hey, great suggestions so far.
I'm feeling a little more confident.
I'll have to warn my player that this is going to be a "work in progress" that's subject to change if it gets out of hand.
I think a better question is: exactly what constitutes "great renown", "fairness and generosity", and "special power"?
In particular, what the hell is special power? Don't most PCs have "special power"?
'Great Renown' generally means you've done something bards for miles around will sing about. Kill the local ogre? Not good enough. Kill the local BBEDragon? Now you're talking. Note this works best if you actually have a Reputation system in place.
'Fairness and Generosity' is pretty straightforward. Do you treat your followers fairly? Do they get a share of the rewards when you adventure? Do you make them sleep in tents while you sleep in a fancy inn? Do you equip them as well as can be expected? Do you treat them with respect? Most LN, LG, NG leaders probably manage this one by default if they're playing their alignment (LN is more fair than generous, while the NG is probably more generous than fair). Any other alignment probably should have to make special effort. But even then, a Paladin could be stingy with his money (for the 'greater good') and rigidly hierarchical ("Know thy place, servant!").
'Special Power' is IMO related to titles and positions. Level 17 Wizard? Not enough. Dean of the Council of Archmagi? That's more like it. Level 13 Fighter? Nope. Baron of Triplewell County? That's the ticket.
|
Really, I think the major point you should be evaluating here is how munchkin'ish is your player?
Leadership is a cool feat if you let it be cool. It can be a terrifying feat if a player uses it in an exploiting manner.
If your player *is* a munchkin *and it sounds like he is*, then I would strongly suggest that you make the cohort *more or less* yourself.
Roll stats, if that's what you do. Put them down on paper just as you roll them. Pick a suitable class. Pick feats and skills, and any magical equipment if the cohort has any.
You can let the player fill out the statistical stuff and roll hitpoints. What you do NOT want to do is to tell your player to make a level x cohort character. This can only end in sorrow.
Let me give you an example of said sorrow... let's say the fighter makes the cohort into a cleric. The cleric takes extend spell, and item crafting feats. The cleric spends every combat just buffing the fighter in question, and sits out every now and then to grind out an improved piece of magical gear specifically designed for the fighter to reduce costs. The cleric takes the luck domain and uses bit of luck to let the fighter roll all his d20's twice and take the better roll. Requires a standard action each round.
Oftentimes, a player who creates their cohort feels like they can do anything with that character sheet. A lot of times the money/loot rewards end up getting spent on something that benefits the players main character instead of the cohort.
Given the nature of the leadership feat, I'd say *caused the death of* would apply to the abstract of the situation.
As in, would a person on the street who heard about what happened feel that the player was responsible. Since its the word on the street that basically defines what people think of the character.
"Did you hear about what Lord Bob of Uberdom did to Sir Paste of Tooth? Well Sir Paste came to support Lord Bob's cause, you know. And how did Lord Bob pay him back? By getting him killed! He should never have let Sir Paste travel into those caves with him!"
|
|
It's funny, we have a player in our group who CN and a bit greedy. I was thinking if he wanted a follower his follower would be just like him. He would be super loyal to the PC not so much to the rest of the party. Bits of treasure would go missing...
I guess that's a bit evil, the NPC would certainly be helpful to the party but maybe not entirely trustworthy.
In fight, the player mustcontrol the cohort, because the DM has already a lot of things to dela with. Outside of combat, I'd say player and DM share the control : the player can control the cohort most of the time but the DM should seize the control when he thinks the cohort should act differently or when he wants to give some advice to the party.
The player in question is a Fighter and somewhat of a munchkin, so I'd like to discourage him from creating yet another melee character just to rack up the extra damage.
Any suggestions on how to handle this?
You must be very careful with the chosen cohort !! A melee cohort is not really a problem (the cohort is just a frontliner 2 levels under the party) but if your players chooses to have a cohort dedicated to buff his character (and only him), things may turn bad.
We had games where there were a few henchmen and cohorts. The GM made up your Cohort/henchman and gave him to another player to control. So nobody had control of their own cohort.
He would take the other player aside and discuss the cohorts motivations and goals and then let the other player take it from there.
The worst thing that happened was that a player would end up liking the cohort so much that they ended up swapping the original character for the NPC.
For this you need an experienced player that you can trust to handle the issues that arise from running the cohort.
If a player wants to abuse the leadership feat, present them with the following scenario: Every enemy from now on, will have a cohort, and a bunch of low level sorcerers spamming magic missile and whatnot, and still be the same CR (because they are a reflection of his feat, not individual monsters).
I am playing kingmaker, and the PCs were talking about abusing leadership. I explained that if I arbitrarily pimped one of the fey creatures, and used OGL material (the ruler insist on using Powers of Faerun to reflect being the leader of a frontier kingdom), I could easily make a CR8 monster with a small army of PC-leveled, elite-stat array, petty fey that would tear their kingdom apart.
One they imagined the surging army of 300 or so lv1-4 mite sorcerers, rogues and druids with giant insect companions, they agreed to the implied "NPC classes only" for followers. In special cases, I allow some followers that get extensive training at the cost of the PCs time, money and effort (reflected in taking skills for this expressed purpose) could multiclass into PC levels, but not gain the elite array.