Our level 12 Bard has the Leadership feat, and I let him build his own minion because his last one turned into a PC (one-shot guest keeps returning :P)
He has almost no offense really, the minion that is, but his defense is pretty formidable. Admittedly, he was built as a 'bodyguard' for the Bard, who is very non-combatant, which is ok... but as a Paladin/Sacred Shield, his 'defense' is contagious to the rest of the party.
Question being, should I allow as-is, or should I have him make changes? I'm in no way wanting to use this as a chance to mess with him... I'm sure he has no intention of abusing it, I just don't want to walk into something I'm not ready for...
----
Hireling
Human paladin (warrior of the holy light, sacred shield) 10
LG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +3; Senses Perception +0
Aura courage (10 ft.), resolve (10 ft.), power of light
----
Defense
----
AC 37, touch 19, flat-footed 34 (+10 armor, +6 deflection, +2 Dex, +1 dodge, +8 shield)
hp 104 (10d10+40)
Fort +15, Ref +11, Will +12
DR 2/—; Immune charm, disease, fear
----
Offense
----
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. in armor)
Melee spiked gauntlet +11/+6 (1d4+3)
Paladin Spell-Like Abilities (CL 10th; concentration +14)
----
Statistics
----
Str 16, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 18
Base Atk +10; CMB +13; CMD 33
Feats Bodyguard, Combat Patrol, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility, Tower Shield Proficiency
Skills Diplomacy +13, Handle Animal +13, Heal +6, Knowledge (nobility) +6, Ride +0, Sense Motive +9
Languages Common
SQ bastion of good, divine bond, holy shield, lay on hands 11/day (5d6), living steel, mercies (diseased, poisoned, sickened)
Other Gear +4 benevolent adamantine agile breastplate, +4 living steel tower shield , spiked gauntlet, belt of physical perfection +2 , cloak of resistance +1 , heavy horse (combat trained)
Thanks for any advise. :)
It looks okay to me, honestly. I just can't figure out where the deflection bonus is coming from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the build itself is totally fine.
However.
Cohorts are built using NPC wealth, not PC wealth. We know this because:"The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level (see Creating NPCs). " Directs us to the NPC gear section of the CRB. Even with a heroic (rather than NPC) array class this gives us 12,750 gp to build this character.
Your player has created his NPC with player WBL, not NPC WBL. His armour alone is worth ~20k GP.
I haven't done the math, but a cohort should come with at most NPC wealth, no PC wealth, and it looks like quite a bit of gear there. If the Bard isn't supplying it, I'd definitely cut back on that.
What Blak said. Also I'm with Azten, where's that deflection coming from?
Leadership is a tricky one... if you are okay with it, then it's okay.
I often play in games where it is banned, due to number of people participating in combat...
In any case, WBL is as per NPC (plus whatever the 'owner' gives him).
Ah, good to know on the resources, that definitely tones things down a few notches... did seem a bit much. :)
Thanks all.
Oh, and the deflection bonus I believe is the Charisma bonus against opponents he invokes Bastion of Good against. I tell him to activate all abilities in HeroLab so I can see him at his "best".
Ok, I sent the minion back with a +1 agile breastplate (no adamantine), +2 living steel tower shield, and belt of dexterity in place of belt of perfection with an explanation. That reduced his AC down to 32 (26).
Again, thanks, should be good now.
Also keep in mind that you control the NPC... Not him.
Not a common view point, but a RAW one. I wouldn't have let him build something if he can't control it though.
As mentioned by others, the gear is far too good. And if he kicks at some point, all that extra wealth will revert to them.
His stats look too good as well. NPC cohorts shouldn't be in the same ballpark as PCs, and should be built using a PC-level stat array. Is that a 25-point build? He should be using a 15-point build.
Some claim that the DM should be the one to create NPC cohorts, not the player, saying that it opens up too much space for abuse and optimisation. I think on that score you've got the right approach: the PC creates the NPC cohort and submits it for your approval. Now you need to exercise your rights as the DM and make executive decisions before handing him back the cohort's character sheet.
Not a common view point, but a RAW one. I wouldn't have let him build something if he can't control it though.
Players are commonly allowed to control NPCs? Yikes.
Heh, no, it's a 20-point build, and since his last minion turned into a PC, I kinda like the idea that it could happen again (say if a PC dies or another guest appears), so keeping the 20-point build is surely a thing I wouldn't want changed.
Anyhows, the player doesn't even own a book as far as I know, and plays a non-combatant bard/illusionist so he doesn't have to learn the mechanics. Him being made to build the character was as much an effort to get him a bit more interested in the mechanics as anything else. The chances he'll abuse it is nil, I just wanted to make sure I didn't leave a loop-hole because although that player is mechanic-weak, there are a couple of mechanic-savvy players in the group. More worried about them wanting to hang out for the benefits, and if they do, that it's not too much.
Kinda looks like they could get a slight boost to AC (the actual Paladin PC already has a heavy shield as a sword-n-board), but not enough to worry too much on. And of course, a lot more healing in the group (which isn't a bad thing I suppose). I had just expected a fighter with the bodyguard feat and a tower shield. so needed to double-check that this isn't something I might regret.
Not a common view point, but a RAW one. I wouldn't have let him build something if he can't control it though.Players are commonly allowed to control NPCs? Yikes.
The rules say that sentient companions (familiars, intelligent mounts, and cohorts) are generally controlled by the player.
The rules say that sentient companions (familiars, intelligent mounts, and cohorts) are generally controlled by the player.Not a common view point, but a RAW one. I wouldn't have let him build something if he can't control it though.Players are commonly allowed to control NPCs? Yikes.
I'm aware of that.
TOTAL control though, nuh uh. Way too much room for abuse.
Most of the time, player dictates actions of NPC, sure. Saves time.
Player issues command that doesn't make sense/leads to NPC suicide? GM has every right to step in and say no.
Commonly, Leadership is straight up banned, so allowing it is usually seen as a courtesy.
Kinda looks like they could get a slight boost to AC (the actual Paladin PC already has a heavy shield as a sword-n-board), but not enough to worry too much on. And of course, a lot more healing in the group (which isn't a bad thing I suppose). I had just expected a fighter with the bodyguard feat and a tower shield. so needed to double-check that this isn't something I might regret.
The paladin can aid another to give +2 AC. He can Holy Shield to give everyone +6 AC (doesn't stack with existing shield bonuses).
The Bastion definitely turns him into quite a tank though, so try to build encounters to accommodate for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like a pretty cool cohort design. Traded in Smite Evil, so no spotlight stealing. The half-damage shelter is good for avoiding TPKs if you throw something big at them.
Player issues command that doesn't make sense/leads to NPC suicide? GM has every right to step in and say no.Commonly, Leadership is straight up banned, so allowing it is usually seen as a courtesy.
That's true of PCs as well. Players never even have 'total' control of their characters. But generally speaking, I don't see why that would be a problem. Our Pack Lord has been controlling her animals for years. Our Bard controlled the previous Fighter/Bodyguard I'd made for him for years.
Not sure why people would ban leadership. One of my favorite aspects of AD&D was building a keep and gaining followers. It's a good part of the game, always has been.
The rules say that sentient companions (familiars, intelligent mounts, and cohorts) are generally controlled by the player.Not a common view point, but a RAW one. I wouldn't have let him build something if he can't control it though.Players are commonly allowed to control NPCs? Yikes.Familiars, intelligent mounts, and cohorts are all different things.
Familiars, animal companions, mounts, etc. have one set of rules. Their rules at no time describe them as being NPCs.
Under the Leadership feat, the cohort is described specifically as being NPCs. NPCs are controlled by the GM.
Them's the rules. Leadership is already a very powerful feat without effectively letting the player run multiple PCs that all seem to magically know exactly what each other is thinking, having the same objectives, etc.
No, I mean that the rules specifically call out cohorts as sentient companions that are generally under PC control (with the usual exceptions regarding harmful actions, etc.)
Their rules at no time describe them as being NPCs.
Under the Leadership feat, the cohort is described specifically as being NPCs. NPCs are controlled by the GM.
Them's the rules.
Player issues command that doesn't make sense/leads to NPC suicide? GM has every right to step in and say no.Commonly, Leadership is straight up banned, so allowing it is usually seen as a courtesy.
That's true of PCs as well. Players never even have 'total' control of their characters. But generally speaking, I don't see why that would be a problem. Our Pack Lord has been controlling her animals for years. Our Bard controlled the previous Fighter/Bodyguard I'd made for him for years.
Not sure why people would ban leadership. One of my favorite aspects of AD&D was building a keep and gaining followers. It's a good part of the game, always has been.
Most common reasons for banning:
1-Optimized character builds (Main character is melee focused, follower is buffer/healer)-disrupts action economy because player can buff with NPC and then charge into combat in same action.
2-Item crafting monkey
3-Too many people in combat-you can double the number of characters in combat if every PC takes Leadership.
don't get me wrong, I love the feat, and take it whenever I am allowed, but a lot of people dislike it/modify it/ban it.
Commonly, Leadership is straight up banned
Source cite?
Leadership is banned in PFS games. That's a large swath of PF right there.
Many folks ban leadership either because their group is big enough (too big) already, or because it is far, far more powerful than a typical feat.
Some even ban leadership because, as many old grognards feel, you should be able to hire help - hirelings - without needing a feat at all.
Personally, I kinda like leadership. I just cautioned my players that I didn't want them *all* taking it, because there would be just too many bodies to manage. But one of them taking it, in order to fill some of the gaping holes in their party composition, feels very, very right.
This said, my players have already hired a few NPCs they've met, and used them for various tasks, like staking out a location, delivering a message or holding the horses. It works very well, no need for a feat for those kind of things.
"A cohort is generally considered a player-controlled companion, and therefore you get to decide how the cohort advances. The GM might step in if you make choices that are inappropriate for the cohort, use the cohort as a mechanism for pushing the boundaries of the game rules, or treat the cohort unfairly. A cohort is a loyal companion and ally to you, and expects you to treat him fairly, generously, without aloofness or cruelty, and without devoting too much attention to other minions such as familiars or animal companions. The cohort's attitude toward you is generally helpful (as if using the Diplomacy skill); he complies with most of your requests without any sort of skill check, except for requests that are against his nature or put him in serious peril."The GM is final arbiter of anything the Cohort does.
The cohort is "generally helpful," he is not an unfettered extension of the player's wishes, especially if those wishes "put him in serious peril." (Such as having him engage in combat against something 6+ CR inappropriate for him, for example.)
The GM is the final arbiter of everything everyone does.
However...
The 'rules' state: A cohort is generally considered a player-controlled companion.
You state: The cohort is described specifically as being NPCs. NPCs are controlled by the GM. Them's the rules.
I state: No, them's not the rules