Leadership and cohorts


Prerelease Discussion

Sovereign Court

Is there going to be an update to leadership and cohorts that will keep the game moving?
It was mentioned somewhere else that it would take an action to command an animal companion and the companion would only get two actions. Will there be a similar rule for cohorts?


Still banned. I fully expect it. Summoner/Minonmancers too more than likely.


The Diplomat wrote:

Is there going to be an update to leadership and cohorts that will keep the game moving?

It was mentioned somewhere else that it would take an action to command an animal companion and the companion would only get two actions. Will there be a similar rule for cohorts?

I don't think any in the staff or of the playtesters talked about it for now.

I would really like that followers are given to everyone (if the DM allows them) and leadership could just give you a cohort, but I'm not sure that this feat should exist in second edition ...

Followers are ok as they are too weak to increase the power of a PC but they can help to set up a business or rule a land. They tend to push the players away from the wandering murder hobo kind.

Cohorts can be useful to a party (like providing something none of the PCs can do) but they are too often used to abuse the system (crafter cohort).


I totally expect followers to be a downtime activity that can be gained by people who take on the General/Marshall/Warden role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cohorts are roughly equivalent to a major class feature (animal companion), if not better because they are sentient and can take the full range of feats and skills, use equipment and make magic items for you. They're way too good, no feat should ever grant them. Old!Leadership is overwhelmingly the single most powerful feat in 3.5/PF1 because it effectively gives you a ton of other feats and options in exchange.

If they were to do prestige classes like Paragon Paths in 4E, where you keep advancing in your class with the prestige bolted on top, I could see "Leadership" as probably being okay for a generic "prestige class" option. Failing that, it is so powerful it should only appear as a class feature / archetype alternative class feature. I never want to see it otherwise.

All of this is only in regards to cohorts. Followers are basically "vendor trash" mechanically and serve a much different role in the game, tying players flavorfully into the setting. Those can be a fine reward for activities IN GAME... but should still never be granted by a feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Leadership should never have been a feat in the first place, but an optional rule instead. If cohorts and followers are something that fits well into the campaign you're running and players are expected to recruit them then leadership is a feat tax. If cohorts and followers would be disruptive then leadership is inherently destabilizing to the game and shouldn't be allowed.


I see no reason to further the life of the Leadership feat concept.
If you add a new character, that affects the CR of group. That's it.


As one who as a Dungeon Master had a generally good experience with Leadership, I agree that as a feat it should go away. My players didn't abuse it all that much, but then again I studied all the issues with it and outright banned the more egregious cohort concepts.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dasrak wrote:
Leadership should never have been a feat in the first place, but an optional rule instead. If cohorts and followers are something that fits well into the campaign you're running and players are expected to recruit them then leadership is a feat tax. If cohorts and followers would be disruptive then leadership is inherently destabilizing to the game and shouldn't be allowed.

Yup, this.


Dasrak wrote:
Leadership should never have been a feat in the first place, but an optional rule instead. If cohorts and followers are something that fits well into the campaign you're running and players are expected to recruit them then leadership is a feat tax. If cohorts and followers would be disruptive then leadership is inherently destabilizing to the game and shouldn't be allowed.

Absolutely this. My last PF campaign was one where all the players were given explicit encouragement to take Leadership and build organizations. Our Monk dumped Charisma and decided not to take it, and subsequently got left out of the minion managing/base building and so on. The DM eventually ended up giving everyone Leadership for free and allowed us to retrain our feat.

I've never seen someone take Leadership without direct permission from the DM, and I imagine it would be disruptive, since managing minions and cohorts takes up a lot of DM and game time. This is really something that should be some sort of optional system, rather than a feat.


Why bother with "giving Leadership for free"?
At that point, why not just... include NPCs who relate to PCs somehow?
When you start giving out powerful Feats for free that implies the threat should be amped up to compensate
(unless players already have trouble with game already designed to be tilted in their direction)
so why not just include NPCs normally re: APL/CR calculation, and not play games about free Leadership Feats?

Roleplaying with allies should be significant part of game, yet when player "knows they are really just a Feat"
that really pulls rug from under the roleplaying IMHO, you naturally reduce roleplaying with them like other NPCs.
Any roleplaying you do tends to fall within convenient box which you describe from outset, since they "are" extensions of character power.
Calculating them as normal NPCs re: APL/CR means it is easy to deal with when they rebel/backstab/abandon PCs.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

Why bother with "giving Leadership for free"?

At that point, why not just... include NPCs who relate to PCs somehow?
When you start giving out powerful Feats for free that implies the threat should be amped up to compensate
(unless players already have trouble with game already designed to be tilted in their direction)
so why not just include NPCs normally re: APL/CR calculation, and not play games about free Leadership Feats?

Pretty sure that was Thebazilly's point.


Didn't get that from comparison with "Feat Tax" which I usually hear re: Power Attack. NPCs being allied with you for a battle isn't really an "optional system" it should always be something rules can easily account for (re: APL/CR). Anyways, haven't heard anything which suggests Paizo is intent on continuing Leadership as Feat.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Leadership and cohorts All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion