| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could take a feat for +2 to bluffing.
Or I could take a feat and get an 8th level Bard.
It doesn't actually break the game, so it's not broken, just overpowered.
A cohort is by far the most powerful effect granted by a feat.
Not merely in combat.
A cohort can prepare Restoration in your stead, leaving your Oracle more room to prepare combat spells, indirectly enhancing your character, or saving money that you would ormally spend on scrolls.
It can learn item creation feats and become your main sorce of gear.
It's not that it should automatically be banned, but you have to be aware that it's a game changer
Think of it this way.
Two CR5 creatures is worth a CR7 creature.
That means that for the cost of a feat, a level 7 character can get half of another level 7 character under their control. It boosts the effective CR of a character by about +1 all by itself i.e. it is worth an entire level, which is a ridiculous amount of power for a single feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My DM wrote and played my cohort, so I didn't actually have any say in what they were. It ended up being a s$@*ty fighter who couldn't contribute to combat at all, because that DM's bad at writing characters.
We ended up having him keep watch at night and such to be useful. So, when done like that, seems balanced to me. If you let the player write and play their cohort, of course it's going to be broken.
...
Now the GM could kindof balance the leadership feat by creating the NPCs themselves and saying this is what you attract deal with it and make a fairly non optimized NPC or a NPC who doubles up on a role already done better by a PC... but that's a lot of extra work on the GM.
Plus there are things like paying for the NPC's retraining. The GM can get around it since they control the NPC's personality, but it still pushes a heavy burden onto the GM if they don't want the feat to be ridiculously powerful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of the characters gained from Leadership should be totally built and run by the DM, the player can totally give input as to the kind of people they'd be looking for and such, but they should never be involved in the mechanics of their minions.
numbers win fights. Getting a free spellcaster that's sole purpose is to help you is much better than anything else, and doubles your combat actions per round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they should never be involved in the mechanics of their minions
This doesn't make much sense in-game imho.
You should be allowed to tell your wizard cohort "prepare teleport, haste and dispel magic, I'll be shooting evocation spells instead".
For the same reason, you should also be allowed to tell your Brawler Cohort "learn power attack" because "that creature is using power attack" is something that is revealed by a succesful knowledge local check (see Spymaster's Handbook, "recall intrigues")
It's the same with teamwork feats and combat strategies in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I (as GM) have a few rules on leadership:
* I write the characters myself now, potentially with some suggestions from the player
* No crafters, no healers (I guess I'd add party face/knowledge role but nobody has tried that in my games since they like to do those)
* I leave it up to the players how to divide loot and I only add a bit extra treasure here and there
* I add an enemy to most encounters since as Chess Pwn said, pathfinder is a numbers game
* Leadership is not allowed if I have 6 PCs and may not be allowed with 5 PCs if they have pets (druid, summoner, etc.). That's just too much good guy to manage
Maybe all that makes me a meanie GM but I find it addresses almost all the concerns without too much effort on my part.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leadership is Quicken Spell with only a 1-caster-level (not spell-level) adjustment (that's also available to martials).
8-th level wizard, without Leadership:
I cast fireball, CL 8.
8-th level wizard, with Leadership:
I cast fireball, CL 8.
My cohort casts fireball, CL 7.
8-th level fighter, without Leadership
I shoot it with four arrows.
8-th level fighter with leadership
My cohort casts haste on myself, himself, and the rest of the party.
I shoot it with five arrows.
they should never be involved in the mechanics of their minionsThis doesn't make much sense in-game imho.
You should be allowed to tell your wizard cohort "prepare teleport, haste and dispel magic, I'll be shooting evocation spells instead".
Given the rules in Spymaster's Handbook, you should also be allowed to tell your Brawler Cohort "learn power attack" because "that creature is using power attack" is something that you can learn knowledge local check;
It's the same with teamwork feats and combat strategies in general.
I should clarify.
I ment the mechanics of the build.mfeats, skills, the specific numbers.
The player could ask the DM for a wizard, but they'd need to specify the kind of wizard they need, in general terms. Also these NPCs would have NPC cash, spent as the DM sees fit and appropriate to the character. The PC can always spend some of their cash on things for their cohorts and followers as well, to equip them a specific way,
Leadership is Quicken Spell with only a 1-caster-level (not spell-level) adjustment (that's also available to martials).
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Another fair comparison is Leadership as Quicken vs Quicken + Spell Perfection. Spell Perfection has 3 pre-req metamagic feats and can't be taken until level 15. It also only affects a single spell ever.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leadership is at it's best if you are using material from Ultimate Campaign, or even Ultimate Intrigue- downtime rules and such. Followers are not meant to be an army, just everyday folks that support what you stand for. Cohorts are best used to deal with minor side-quests, or to gather his or her peeps to investigate something for you. Leadership is only a problem if you let it be.
Personally, I think it's one of the most fun feats in the game, and I mean that as someone who greatly enjoys things like downtime and creating an immersive world outside of kicking ass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the leadership feat, both from a player and GM position. My ruling on it is that the Cohort is not a crafter nor can they take the leadership feat, that is just dumb. The player gets input on what they want and I make an NPC. After that it is up to the player/s to get the NPC to join them.
After that they are a part of the group so they get a cut of the loot like everyone else. They also have their own story, just like the players. They have personalities and goals all of their own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I've always heard here on the forums that the Leadership feat is totally broken, and that no DM should allow it, and if they do, every PC should take it.
My question is: why?
What makes Leadership so broken? Is it the extra cohort you get? Or the veritable army of underlings? Is it too much action economy? Too disruptive to the table? Too much book-keeping?
What makes Leadership so broken?
Is there a way to make it less/not broken? Maybe only allow the cohort, but no underlings? All of the characters are in the DMs control? Something else? If you could "fix" Leadership, how would you change it, while keeping it as intact as possible, such that you would allow it at your table.
(The main reason I ask this is because I have a fellow player who has asked to take the feat; our DM has not answered yet, but my default assumption was the answer would be no, since that's what I always hear the default answer should be. However, it got me to thinking that I've never really heard WHY it shouldn't be allowed; only that it shouldn't. Also, it seems like it could make for some good flavor, like, for example, if a player wants to start a business or mercenary band or some such. However, I know there are downtime rules for such things, and they are both money and time intensive. So using a feat to circumvent much of that could be way too powerful.)
That is just some people. It is not a common theme. It has never broken my games, but to answer the question it is really powerful. In combat you can get a 2nd set of actions, and action economy is powerful. If you have your cohort just craft magic items it gives the party a lot of extra wealth. When some GM's already don't like the magic item creation feats, having someone in the party who does nothing, create magic items rubs them the wrong way.
That feat is often used for power, not just flavor. If you just want flavor and no(or very little)power many GM's will just let you have a business on the side without spending resources for it.
So, I've always heard here on the forums that the Leadership feat is totally broken, and that no DM should allow it, and if they do, every PC should take it.
My question is: why?
What makes Leadership so broken? Is it the extra cohort you get? Or the veritable army of underlings? Is it too much action economy? Too disruptive to the table? Too much book-keeping?
What makes Leadership so broken?
Is there a way to make it less/not broken? Maybe only allow the cohort, but no underlings? All of the characters are in the DMs control? Something else? If you could "fix" Leadership, how would you change it, while keeping it as intact as possible, such that you would allow it at your table.
(The main reason I ask this is because I have a fellow player who has asked to take the feat; our DM has not answered yet, but my default assumption was the answer would be no, since that's what I always hear the default answer should be. However, it got me to thinking that I've never really heard WHY it shouldn't be allowed; only that it shouldn't. Also, it seems like it could make for some good flavor, like, for example, if a player wants to start a business or mercenary band or some such. However, I know there are downtime rules for such things, and they are both money and time intensive. So using a feat to circumvent much of that could be way too powerful.)
The game is about a small group of heroes fighting against hordes of monsters (and let's not forget stealing their gold) or generally going against the odds even in social situations.
It's not meant to be played by chatacters commanding armies of minions. That's something NPCs do. So basically Leadership inserts a new dynamic into the game, one the game is generally ill prepared to handle barring special efforts from the DM and players.
Well I think it is just silly to expect 1 Feat to accurately match power curve of additional character.
If you actually want this for story reasons, not power, then there is no reason to use a feat at all,
the GM can introduce an NPC who matchs the roleplaying context, who cooperates and roleplays with you.
This character naturally affects the effective APL/CR of party, and your challenges will scale to match.
In all honesty, I don't see why the Feat itself shouldn't be run that way, namely as the cohort/followers affecting APL/etc.
It would still certainly be a net benefit IMHO, and "worth a Feat".
Of course, it is not exactly wholly unique in this regard, other than that people usually expect full character design/control with it. But summoning/calling and undead creation/control otherwise have similar issues.
I believe there actually is another Paizo Feat which amounts to "lower powered Leadership Feat", but can't remember it's name or source book at the moment. Perhaps somebody else can?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Torchbearer and Squire give you a weaker cohort (A torchbearer or a Squire) which upgrades itself to leadership at the appropriate levels. They can't be casters, except I think torchbearer can be an alchemist.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I think it is just silly to expect 1 Feat to accurately match power curve of additional character.
Ironically, this is one of the few cases where I can see feat chains being useful and appropriate. One feat for a companion, another to upgrade the companion to a combat-useful level, and a third to make the companion into a caster, for example.
It's somewhat annoying and silly that Torchbearer is one of the few feats that automatically upgrades, while Whirlwind Attack requires thirty-five feats before you are even allowed to pronounce its name.
It's not broken. There are just a lot of lazy GMs that frequent these boards.
I don't have as much of a problem with this feat as many here, I suppose. It can be really strong if power gamed, but you should probably come up with a good story reason for your new companion, and maybe not have them contribute directly very often.
In my case, I played a LE cleric of Asmodeus in Wrath of the Righteous from Cheliax that wanted to prove himself to his family by establishing a foothold of Cheliaxian law in the Worldwound. I ended up taking leadership and didn't even bother building the cohort, I just designated him as my second-in-command to spread the unholy word around the camps. The plan was then to have the low-level mass amount of followers basically be the foundation of a new church. I was then going to take the mythic power Divine Source, and essentially become the new thing they worship that gives them power.
Of course, my GM took offense to this plan and had 5 teleporting demons warp adjacent to me and spear me to death (and my body, for 3 rounds afterwards). Plans never quite work out. Oh well.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not broken. There are just a lot of lazy GMs that frequent these boards.
"It's not broken, some people just don't fix it."
Leadership is considered better than any one feat, because your cohort could always take that feat.
or any feat for that matter, it's a feat that gives you access to several more feats, and like a whole nother character... and class abilities and things...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets look at the closest alternative (that isn't just that squire feat)- animal ally.
This takes two feats to get an animal companion with your level treated as -3 (which, considering the fact that animal companions are basically 3/4 HD for players anyway... means you get it at 3/5 hd without investing another feat).
This animal companion is not intelligent, has one skill point per level, has very limited feat selection, and cannot use traditional weapons and armor loot. There are some advantages, of course (mount, special abilities, etc)... but it is still exceedingly limited compared to a PC.
So 3 feats for a much more watered down character. Compared to 1 feat to get a character that is almost the same level as you (so that is 9/10 hd). The shift from cohort to animal companion is basically cutting it in half. As I have heard said before: 'if your feat can be cut and half and still be considered good, then the feat is overpowered'.
Entire class features are not as good as this feat. The closest comparison is the eidolon... and the eidolon is half of the summoner's class features. Also, it is basically limited to a big dumb melee person with a couple weird abilities and some skill stuff. Exceedingly limited spell access. While cohorts can have specialized classes and be devoted to spell casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been running a game where two of the four players have Leadership. I initially built the cohorts but I let the players handle it from there, although I have communicated clearly that the cohort is an NPC and I ultimately have control.
It's been fun. One player chose an NPC as their cohort and the storyline between the two of them has been inspiring. On the other hand the other player is on his third cohort because he's never satisfied with what I give him and eventually dismisses them. He is interested in monstrous cohorts which is fine but most have very low equivalent effective levels.
So I've had a mixed experience. In the future I don't think I will allow Leadership again. It just creates too much stress for me as the DM as I worry about countering abuse. I would rather grant the equivalent of cohorts and followers to my players through the use of NPCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing that gives me stress is planar binding. You can get something like a cohort of you play it right it. You could even get three or four of them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I allow Leadership, but I do require caveats.
First, the cohort is an NPC, although one loyal to the player. I usually prefer existing NPCs be selected by the player, but if they aren't satisfied with any of the NPCs that exist, I can generate one meeting their vague preferences.
The character must become notable in some fashion to warrant the cohort and eventual followers. The cohort and followers are following because of this purpose. Whether it's a squire to a knight, apprentice to a wizard, or even just a bard wanting to extol your heroic (or nefarious) deeds, your cohort seeks to emulate you.
Working with your cohort is fine, and you can recommend teamwork. But because they want to be relevant (being a person with their own aspirations), they won't be happy if you treat them as slave labor. Mistreating cohorts can and will impact your fame negatively.
Any strategy that starts to smell like cheese will be watched carefully. The cohort is not an excuse to make your character better by virtue of their existence. The cohort is because you want to bring a little bit of the campaign world with you. (And, often, if a player grows attached to an NPC, allowing them to grow as a cohort is the best way to protect them.)
Cohorts won't join if the party starts to feel crowded, and counts as a party member for the sake of balancing encounters. Some treasure will be added to make sure they can stay relevant.
...yeah, I know, it looks a lot like I just gutted the feat. But players have still expressed interest in it, just no longer because it's absurdly potent.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is about a small group of heroes fighting against hordes of monsters (and let's not forget stealing their gold) or generally going against the odds even in social situations.
It's not meant to be played by chatacters commanding armies of minions. That's something NPCs do. So basically Leadership inserts a new dynamic into the game, one the game is generally ill prepared to handle barring special efforts from the DM and players.
In a word: No. The game's about a lot more than that and most of the D&D family always has been. Henchmen (cohorts in previous edition terms) and followers have been around since at least 1e AD&D. The particular mechanics of PF make it a pretty potent choice for certain styles of play, but it doesn't have to be problematic.
Leadership is not as bad as people say, usually. It comes down to the GM making a competent-but-not-supremely-optimized character for the player to get as a cohort. They ARE level-2, meaning they remain relevant, but hardly overpowering. The other issue is complementing the PC. I wouldn't let a player get a cohort that perfectly took up their slack. No hugely focused characters, meaning no aggro berserk damage-dealers, no huge walls of hp bodyguards, no hyper-focused blaster wizards, and most especially no crafters. If you take the feat, you get a competently-made character of a class similar to your own, two or more levels weaker than you. They will be able to contribute, but won't steal party niches or outshine anyone. Sure, you could just find an NPC and not take the feat, but with leadership, you get someone who is and will remain loyal to you, given somewhat decent treatment.
And that was the point, wasn't it?
Is leadership really anymore broken than an eidolon or animal companion?
Is leadership really anymore broken than an eidolon or animal companion?
If the player has full control? Yes. As mentioned above by somebody else, an animal companion amounts to half a cohort, but takes three feats. An eidolon is better than a cohort, but there is absolutely no combination of feats that you can use to gain a full strength eidolon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is leadership really anymore broken than an eidolon or animal companion?
Can you have a wizard as a cohort? One that covers all crafting feats and knowledge feats no one else wants to grab?
Animal companions are pure brutes, and even in that regard they are somwhat stunted by the limits of their HD- they cap at 16, and they only have 3/4 BAB. They are treated as a bonus- a minor one. Usually, they are best used to pull off maneuvers for debuffing enemies, or giving you flank bonuses.
Eidolons are a better comparison since they more fully succeed as a bruiser... and they are half of the entire summoner class. Also, they do not come with very much spell casting (a few potential spells... but that is very limited). They can have hands though, and they can take all sorts of PC actions that animal companions cannot (such as using wands).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The character must become notable in some fashion to warrant the cohort and eventual followers. The cohort and followers are following because of this purpose. Whether it's a squire to a knight, apprentice to a wizard, or even just a bard wanting to extol your heroic (or nefarious) deeds, your cohort seeks to emulate you.
while I get the point, and i'm still not in favor of using leadership that often, but someone following someone else is not always them trying to emulate them, often it's to protect them. just pointing this out.
Part of me feels like Leadership should be a group feat, because there's so many better reasons for someone to be loyal to the group and not any one specific individual...
I wonder if it would be more balanced if it was taken as some kidn of variant multiclassing type deal and used 3/4 HD instead of what it is currently.
I normally just use leadership in terms of story and downtime.
If the player for a conjurer asks for it, just say no...
My idea (which has yet to be tested in actual play, unless somebody else thought of something similar):
If you get Leadership as a class feature (for instance, Leadership Domainn 8th level power or Noble Scion's Greater Leadership, it works as advertised, except that the Noble Scion ability (including the 10th level upgrade) that lessens or removes the Cohort's level decrement does not apply if your Cohort is a Noble Scion.
Otherwise:
You need to supply a pre-Leadership feat such as Torchbearer or Squire as a prerequisite, and whichever of these feats you use becomes a feat tax rather than upgrading itself to Leadership when you reach high enough level. In addition, you must have enough Leadership score (calculated as if you already have the feat) to gain followers (barring something weird, this means a minimum of 10) to take this feat, and you must have demonstrated proper role-play of leadership up to the point of taking this feat..
The analogous conditions would also apply for selecting Vile Leadership (as above, except that the Vile Leadership score is calculated differently).
Edit: In any case, if you abuse the spirit of Leadership while retaining the feat due to remaining in technical compliance, the Cohort and Followers reserve the right to start behaving like Sir Robin's Minstrels . . . .
Part of me feels like Leadership should be a group feat, because there's so many better reasons for someone to be loyal to the group and not any one specific individual...
This is an interesting concept, one I'm interested in.
Especially when it comes down to other kinds of "getting it for the group" feats, such as crafting feats. The player is taking a hit in their character's strength and giving up a precious feat to help the group. But is that fair? Why can't it actually be a group feat?
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funnily enough the only places I have felt leadership appropriate are things like games where you own or run something.
IE Kingmaker. It makes sense for the party to get leadership there as the cohort is in town doing your duties while you are out and you would have followers. It is the same with Skull and Shackles you can have a pirate ship which needs crew. If you are good (or more than likely Evil!!! MUHUWAHAHA) you can get multiple ships and having leadership be for your other ships to indicate players to manage those ships makes a good deal of sense.
Leadership really seems out of place when the party is just a bunch of murderhobos why would someone be following you?
If Leadership was stepped (1st time you get the cohort, 2nd the other followers) it might work better. The problems I've seen are:
1-time devoted to one player who almost always (no offense KK, you're good) sucks up game time. One players has a whole 'nother round they have to get accomplished and the worst are the players who are sure that they're not the one taking up all the time. Especially those who run diametrically different characters that just do not work well together or must function separately. KK above has the best example of making a martial class and caster work in tandem. Her 'cohort' is a fighter charged with protecting her caster. She actually 'argues' with her cohort as to risks, etc. Good roleplay. The only other cohort we regularly have is a Paladin trainee, squire to our semi-regular Paladin. Campaign rule that NO COHORT may be as high a level as the lowest actual played character.
2-Loot gets funky. Does the bodyguard to the Wizard get a share?
3-Our house rule is you can only take a weaker caster cohorts, are built on 15 rather than 20 points and must generally be of the same race.
4-No class with a serious sidekick is eligible for Leadership. Several other 'complicating' feats also fall into this sack. I am subject to this being an Eberron Changeling Wizard with a mutating familiar. 3 different complications. Rangers, some Druids, all Summoners etc., all fall into the sack as well. I really hate to admit it works so well. Then again, our GM is a brute who 'solves complicated characters terminally if players can't. This is my second familiar.
5-pulling bits from many posts above, the game is about the actions of the players, not their 'chorus'. Jason and the Argonauts did include several serious heroes, but the oarsmen were just spear carriers. Scads of folks fought in the Trojan war, but less than a half dozen matter. Leonidas led 300 Spartans, but we never focus on Luther, #287. Can you tell what history I've been reading? Sir Bedaveire is the hero, his squire is...can't remember his name. Nobody wants somebody else to get the kill in on the BBEG, but NOBODY wants some faceless lackey to get that kill.