PDA

View Full Version : Death to All Cohorts!



Khaladon
2010-06-15, 11:59 AM
I've never really liked the ability to have a cohort along. To me it basically seems like being able to get a gestalt character for the price of a little feat.

And if everyone in the party doesn't have a cohort, then it can easily unbalance the party.

I don't always mind, as some folk know how to use a cohort 'properly' (IMHO) as basically just a tag-along NPC that doesn't get much face-time but is there to help out in a real pinch. But it's those who use it to basically double up their character that can get to me.

I realize that MMV widely on this topic but that's why I made this thread, to hear what others think of the subject. I have no interest in arguing the matter, but if you feel strongly one way or the other about it, or have some solid 'proof' that I'm full of it, I'm welcome to hear it. :smallsmile:

This is just a friendly forum for open discussion and debate on the topic, any who want to insult or argue can go somewhere else.

So whatcha think?

Grifthin
2010-06-15, 12:02 PM
I dislike book keeping. I dislike both familiars and Cohorts equally :smallbiggrin:

Umael
2010-06-15, 12:02 PM
Hasn't come up in any of our games. Have to ask though...

What do you, as a GM, do if the cohort dies?

PId6
2010-06-15, 12:10 PM
Leadership is broken broken broken broken. It's far better than just gestalting your character; it gives you a second one, which means extra actions and the ability to do crazy things with disposable minion. Pretty much in any game where Leadership is allowed, there is no (optimization-based) reason why anyone wouldn't want to take it (bookkeeping and desire not to break game can be factors though).

Another_Poet
2010-06-15, 12:12 PM
Our group has a history of not taking Leadership and not employing tagalong NPCs of any kind.

However, that is currently changing. We have been down a player for 6 months or more in my IK campaign, with slim recruitment prospects. The players all love their current characters but really feel the need for an arcanist. One is taking Leadership to add the much-needed arcanist to the group.

I suspect they will use it as a party resource, giving the character little face time as you described but turning to them when their niche abilities are needed. I do agree that the presence of cohorts means extra bookkeeping and that is my primary concern, not overpowering one of the characters, because I feel good both about my players' common sense in using the cohort and in my DM skill in balancing things as needed.

Ultimately it depends on the will of the group. Each group has its own style and preferences. Having suicidally devoted cohorts who act as your combat double or your effective gestalt resource is fine if the group accepts that. If just one player has that mentality then you may need to talk to them or just employ houserules that limit such uses. For instance I would step in as a DM and have the cohort refuse to accept certain missions or tasks because they are too dangerous.

@Umael: I don't know why you would treat a dead cohort any differently than any other dead character. The Leadership feat includes rules for gathering new cohorts as well as the modifiers to your Leadership score from having a reputation of killing cohorts. The players can res the cohort if they want, paying out of their own pocket and accepting the drawbacks of res as with any other resurrection they seek. It's not the DMs issue to deal with. Moreover if the PCs are sending their cohorts into battle they should expect fatalities since the cohorts are by definition lower level than the PCs.

Caliphbubba
2010-06-15, 12:12 PM
It's been banned in every game I've ran or played in, that to me says it all.

Emmerask
2010-06-15, 12:15 PM
Leadership is broken broken broken broken. It's far better than just gestalting your character; it gives you a second one, which means extra actions and the ability to do crazy things with disposable minion. Pretty much in any game where Leadership is allowed, there is no (optimization-based) reason why anyone wouldn't want to take it (bookkeeping and desire not to break game can be factors though).

Well the cohort is an npc and therefore played by the dm and not the player :smalltongue: While this diminishes the return a bit leadership or the cohort feats are still broken, I agree with that :smallwink:

Khaladon
2010-06-15, 12:15 PM
Leadership is broken broken broken broken. It's far better than just gestalting your character; it gives you a second one, which means extra actions and the ability to do crazy things with disposable minion. Pretty much in any game where Leadership is allowed, there is no (optimization-based) reason why anyone wouldn't want to take it (bookkeeping and desire not to break game can be factors though).

I hear ya brother! Preach on! Word! :smallcool:


Hasn't come up in any of our games. Have to ask though...

What do you, as a GM, do if the cohort dies?

Um, Celebrate? :smallbiggrin:


PS I'm thinking of starting another thread as
"Death to all those who overuse smilies!"
Whatcha think? :smalltongue:

Telonius
2010-06-15, 12:15 PM
Hasn't come up in any of our games. Have to ask though...

What do you, as a GM, do if the cohort dies?

"Ooh, and that drops him to negative 10. -2 to your leadership score for recruiting another cohort. Could you clear off the mini?"

Usually they'll pay for the Raise Dead/Resurrection/etc.

2xMachina
2010-06-15, 12:17 PM
Not gestalt. Kind of better. Better Action Economy and HP. (Less synergy though)

Khaladon
2010-06-15, 12:23 PM
Our group has a history of not taking Leadership and not employing tagalong NPCs of any kind.

However, that is currently changing. We have been down a player for 6 months or more in my IK campaign, with slim recruitment prospects. The players all love their current characters but really feel the need for an arcanist. One is taking Leadership to add the much-needed arcanist to the group.

I suspect they will use it as a party resource, giving the character little face time as you described but turning to them when their niche abilities are needed. I do agree that the presence of cohorts means extra bookkeeping and that is my primary concern, not overpowering one of the characters, because I feel good both about my players' common sense in using the cohort and in my DM skill in balancing things as needed.

Ultimately it depends on the will of the group. Each group has its own style and preferences. Having suicidally devoted cohorts who act as your combat double or your effective gestalt resource is fine if the group accepts that. If just one player has that mentality then you may need to talk to them or just employ houserules that limit such uses. For instance I would step in as a DM and have the cohort refuse to accept certain missions or tasks because they are too dangerous.



You see now the situation you described is one where I wouldn't mind a cohort at all.

But the bottom line is, to use your term, "player's common sense", having a good group of players that all possess this trait, as it seems yours do, is a goldmine, so kudos to you Another_Poet.

And secondly, I couldn't agree more, ultimately it is up to the DM as to how (or IF) cohorts run.



@Emmerask: Just to be clear, my dig re smilies was aimed at Me, not you. You ninja'd me and I wrote that comment before I ever saw your post. :)

NEO|Phyte
2010-06-15, 12:23 PM
"Ooh, and that drops him to negative 10. -2 to your leadership score for recruiting another cohort. Could you clear off the mini?"

Usually they'll pay for the Raise Dead/Resurrection/etc.

Hey now, that -2 is only if you CAUSE the death.

Khaladon
2010-06-15, 12:26 PM
Awesome Avatar NEO|Phyte! One of the most original I've seen.

Got anything cool for a Ranger(or Scout), Assassin, Shadow Lord type Character?

PS I'm allowed to thread-hack my own thread! :smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2010-06-15, 12:35 PM
"Ooh, and that drops him to negative 10. -2 to your leadership score for recruiting another cohort. Could you clear off the mini?"

Usually they'll pay for the Raise Dead/Resurrection/etc.If you want to be a real ass: -2 to Leadership score can mean that the player can no longer have a cohort of that level. If they went the extra mile and got True Ress on the cohort, it might no longer be a valid cohort, and just walk away. :smallamused:

Hey now, that -2 is only if you CAUSE the death.As in, taking the cohort with you to a dangerous adventure?

AstralFire
2010-06-15, 12:54 PM
Leadership is banned. Roleplay that stuff out.

Scorpina
2010-06-15, 12:58 PM
I generally find it a headache to have more characters than players in the PC party. It's just a hassle that isn't really worth it. I can just about handle familiars and animal companions, but that's about my limit on that.

I don't think I'd ever take Leadership. So much extra paper work...

Umael
2010-06-15, 01:09 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of what you do when the player wants another cohort. Lower the level allowed? Deny the request?

Even worse thought - what about cohorts having cohorts?

NEO|Phyte
2010-06-15, 01:12 PM
As in, taking the cohort with you to a dangerous adventure?
Using roundabout "causes" like that only gets you stabbed. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html)

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-15, 01:14 PM
Hey now, that -2 is only if you CAUSE the death.

He followed you into battle and he died, thus you caused his death.

Scorpina
2010-06-15, 01:17 PM
I think it'd need to be a more direct cause than that.

2xMachina
2010-06-15, 01:19 PM
He was born, thus he'll die someday. So, his parents caused his death?

NEO|Phyte
2010-06-15, 01:19 PM
He followed you into battle and he died, thus you caused his death.

I don't recall forcing my cohort to follow me into battle via Compulsion effects, how exactly is his death my fault?

PId6
2010-06-15, 01:20 PM
He was born, thus he'll die someday. So, his parents caused his death?
Why wouldn't you use every excuse to blame your parents? :smalltongue:

Telonius
2010-06-15, 01:39 PM
I don't recall forcing my cohort to follow me into battle via Compulsion effects, how exactly is his death my fault?

If he was following your orders at the time, it's your responsibility. If he wasn't following your orders at the time, he wasn't a cohort.

NEO|Phyte
2010-06-15, 01:42 PM
If he was following your orders at the time, it's your responsibility. If he wasn't following your orders at the time, he wasn't a cohort.
So he's only a cohort if I'm directly ordering him around? He slips in and out of cohortness as he completes an order and waits for the next one? Have we discovered quantum allies?

Scorpina
2010-06-15, 01:46 PM
If he was following your orders at the time, it's your responsibility. If he wasn't following your orders at the time, he wasn't a cohort.

I think it's fairly tenous to claim that if he died following your orders, it's your responsibility. Yes, if you say 'Advance at a slow pace towards the red dragon's breath weapon', then you're likely responsible for his death (well, probably a bit less than the dragon, I'd argue), but if it's more of a case where he enters battle with a foe of comparible power to himself and comes up on the losing end, I'd argue that you're not the cause of his death - even if he was only fighting because you told him to.

huttj509
2010-06-15, 01:58 PM
Look at it this way:

PC: LF Cohort, PST!
NPC1: Dude, don't go with him, I know he's impressive but he's gone through 5 cohorts in 3 months!
NPC2: Well, it might not be his fault, I mean, combat is inherently dangerous, ya know.
NPC1: Well, you can take the risk if ya like but most of us think he's cursed. Can I have your stuff?

Edit: I think an interpretation of how the event would spin NPC reaction is the best way to determine fault. If the cohort charged in ahead before the group was ready and the dragon ate him, that's not the leader's fault. If the cohort got killed by a trap since the leader didn't bring someone to keep an eye out for them, or was sent alone to forage for food and got eaten by squirrels, it would give an unfavorable impression of the leader when word got back.

Starbuck_II
2010-06-15, 02:01 PM
This is just a friendly forum for open discussion and debate on the topic, any who want to insult or argue can go somewhere else.

So whatcha think?

I think it is fine. They only get NPC wealth and you have to pay them a 1/2 share.

If they die, revive them.

ken-do-nim
2010-06-15, 02:05 PM
A cohort can't come at the cost of a feat. They are an NPC, with their own motives and actions. If you, the DM, decide that the cohort will eventually betray their master, that's a fine move plot-wise, but when it happens the player will whine that you've nerfed his build because he spent a precious feat on it. So, remove it from the feat chain.

Khaladon
2010-06-15, 02:08 PM
Look at it this way:

PC: LF Cohort, PST!
NPC1: Dude, don't go with him, I know he's impressive but he's gone through 5 cohorts in 3 months!
NPC2: Well, it might not be his fault, I mean, combat is inherently dangerous, ya know.
NPC1: Well, you can take the risk if ya like but most of us think he's cursed. Can I have your stuff?

Edit: I think an interpretation of how the event would spin NPC reaction is the best way to determine fault. If the cohort charged in ahead before the group was ready and the dragon ate him, that's not the leader's fault. If the cohort got killed by a trap since the leader didn't bring someone to keep an eye out for them, or was sent alone to forage for food and got eaten by squirrels, it would give an unfavorable impression of the leader when word got back.

This makes sense, as the whole point of the penalty is how your last cohorts death will affect any potential new cohorts. Unless someone stabs someone else in the face, assigning direct responsibility for death can be murky. Perception of the event is what will count and that, of course, has to be up to the DM.

Telonius
2010-06-15, 02:17 PM
So he's only a cohort if I'm directly ordering him around? He slips in and out of cohortness as he completes an order and waits for the next one? Have we discovered quantum allies?

No, we've discovered how to have cohorts in a game and not completely break it. If the cohort is going to be there at all, he's going to be assumed to be under the orders of the PC. If the player wants to put the cohort up in harm's way where he can be a gigantic influence in terms of action economy and overall power, then he's going to have to take the risk that the cohort dies. Either plan to set aside more gold for defense and resurrection (wealth being a cost that balances the awesomeness of the feat), or plan to keep the cohort back and use him only in emergencies (how it ought to be, imo), or plan to have successively weaker cohorts.

PId6
2010-06-15, 02:21 PM
No, we've discovered how to have cohorts in a game and not completely break it. If the cohort is going to be there at all, he's going to be assumed to be under the orders of the PC. If the player wants to put the cohort up in harm's way where he can be a gigantic influence in terms of action economy and overall power, then he's going to have to take the risk that the cohort dies. Either plan to set aside more gold for defense and resurrection (wealth being a cost that balances the awesomeness of the feat), or plan to keep the cohort back and use him only in emergencies (how it ought to be, imo), or plan to have successively weaker cohorts.
Meh, it's easy enough to break even with those nerfs. I built a high level gestalt warlock once where I had a 17th level Wizard//Artificer cohort. The guy just makes magic items for me and buffs me every morning, then Teleports to the closest city to chill for the rest of the day. No danger, and does more than enough to be worth the feat (how's double your WBL sound?).

Gnaeus
2010-06-15, 02:26 PM
We have used/are using cohorts in 2 ways.

1. Filling in when not enough players. Someone or everyone gets a free cohort. The cohorts are treated like PCs, although one or more levels behind the star players. They have backstories, plot hooks, and personal motivation.

2. A non-adventuring resource. My character has among his goals creating an underground temple to his god in his city. The cohort that I have discussed with the DM will not come with us on adventures, and will be a coward who will not take a front line role in combat even if the shrine is attacked. He will help us craft items when we are fortunate enough to spend time in the city, but will not spend xp or gold on our behalf. He will be our ears when we aren't in the city, keeping us up to date on events and the growing temple. So somewhere between a part time crafting feat and a secretary. The DM thinks that is roughly fair for a feat slot.


Meh, it's easy enough to break even with those nerfs.

3.5 is easy to break even with nerfs. You can have nicer things when that isn't your goal.

Umael
2010-06-15, 02:27 PM
I'm... kinda surprised at your guys.

No one said anything about the notion of cohorts having cohorts. I mean, thematically, it's like Batman and Robin with Robin having his own sidekick, but still... you spend a feat, get a cohort. When the cohort gets high enough level, s/he spends a feat, gets a cohort, and so on.

Or worse, so you don't have to worry about experience points, you start at Level 20. That's 7 regular feats. One of them is Leadership, do the numbers, have a cohort at Level 19. Still 7 regular feats. Continue until you have 1 20th-level PC and 16 NPCs, evenly from 19th level to 4th level. "Hey, 6th-level, it's your turn to do the dishes again!" Presdigitation! "All done!!"

Erom
2010-06-15, 02:30 PM
We've always allowed it in my games, though cohorts cohorts are banned. We often run with multiple character per player anyway, so adding one more to the mix is not usually an issue. Tactical choices can get a little thin on the ground in dnd anyway, so extra characters gives the players more to plan and think about. Higher cognitive load on players = less likely to get bored, and increases the skill cap.

PId6
2010-06-15, 02:30 PM
I'm... kinda surprised at your guys.

No one said anything about the notion of cohorts having cohorts. I mean, thematically, it's like Batman and Robin with Robin having his own sidekick, but still... you spend a feat, get a cohort. When the cohort gets high enough level, s/he spends a feat, gets a cohort, and so on.
Not to mention Psicrystals and animal companions with Leadership?

Telonius
2010-06-15, 02:32 PM
Meh, it's easy enough to break even with those nerfs. I built a high level gestalt warlock once where I had a 17th level Wizard//Artificer cohort. The guy just makes magic items for me and buffs me every morning, then Teleports to the closest city to chill for the rest of the day. No danger, and does more than enough to be worth the feat (how's double your WBL sound?).

If the nerf is good enough that it takes a gestalt Wizard//Artificer to break it, it's good enough. (I also don't consider it a nerf, as much as a rather broad reading of the word "caused" in the Leadership rules).

NEO|Phyte
2010-06-15, 02:33 PM
If the nerf is good enough that it takes a gestalt Wizard//Artificer to break it, it's good enough.

It's plenty breakable with less, that's just an example he'd actually had in play.

PId6
2010-06-15, 02:37 PM
If the nerf is good enough that it takes a gestalt Wizard//Artificer to break it, it's good enough.
Just a straight artificer or any kind of buffer works, or anything else that supports out of combat; that was just an example. A Factotum/Chameleon with every Knowledge skill, the ability to cast utility spells when needed, and the ability to craft whatever you want; a straight wizard/cleric/sorcerer/favored soul/whatever that casts spells on the party at the start of the day and provide utility when necessary; a Bard diplomancer that gets whatever you want from whomever you want through talking, and provides Knowledge skills and utility spells as well; all of these provide far more than a single feat should, and never endanger the cohort one bit.

Umael
2010-06-15, 02:41 PM
Not to mention Psicrystals and animal companions with Leadership?

(Oh, right, thanks!)

Any way to get a familiar to have Leadership?

Calemyr
2010-06-15, 02:41 PM
As a player, I've only used Leadership twice.

The first time (my first campaign), the DM did a wicked job of turning my character's partner into the party's introduction to the mythos beneath the campaign. Chance turned her into the ultimate dragonslayer (landed the killing blow on every dragon we battled). It was quite cool.

The second time I played an artificer with a penchant for artificial intelligence and constructs. Took the feat mainly so that I could have army of clockwork menders as followers that could function as a factory for his more outlandish creations. The cohort was actually the first clockwork mender he made, which shared its creator's genius level intellect, though applied it more towards managerial skills and sarcasm. Besides managing the menders, Docent served primarily as the artificer's PDA and flashlight (darkvision + shared senses. It took significant insult in being used this way). Later, it was upgraded into a portable "cell tower" for use with the communication network the artificer devised. Needless to say, I had a lot of fun with them.

I also remember one where another PC accidentally picked up a girlfriend and was forced to take the feat in order for her to be useful, since there was no escaping her. That was worth a laugh. Never really seen cohorts done badly, however.

PId6
2010-06-15, 02:44 PM
(Oh, right, thanks!)

Any way to get a familiar to have Leadership?
Well, Arcane Hierophant lets you set your Animal Companion as your Familiar. Does that count?

Gnaeus
2010-06-15, 02:45 PM
Just a straight artificer or any kind of buffer works, or anything else that supports out of combat; that was just an example. A Factotum/Chameleon with every Knowledge skill, the ability to cast utility spells when needed, and the ability to craft whatever you want; a straight wizard/cleric/sorcerer/favored soul/whatever that casts spells on the party at the start of the day and provide utility when necessary; a Bard diplomancer that gets whatever you want from whomever you want through talking, and provides Knowledge skills and utility spells as well; all of these provide far more than a single feat should, and never endanger the cohort one bit.

*Shrugs* If the DM wants to let you break his game, and the PCs want to do it, there are a million ways to do it, with or without leadership or broken spells.

If your cohort heals out of combat, or provides item creation for the entire party at times when markets are impossible to access, maybe it is stronger than any single other feat, but used responsibly does it make the game any less fun?

And if that cohort comes with plot hooks? If he is on the run from an arranged marriage, or keeps wandering into danger and has to be rescued? (Classic sidekick behavior) What you see as broken can just as easily be a chance to introduce new, fun elements into the game.

Umael
2010-06-15, 02:46 PM
Well, Arcane Hierophant lets you set your Animal Companion as your Familiar. Does that count?

Only as a technicality. It doesn't increase the chain any.

Of course, the fun is trying to figure out how many cohorts total you can get by the time you get to level 20...

PId6
2010-06-15, 02:50 PM
And if that cohort comes with plot hooks? If he is on the run from an arranged marriage, or keeps wandering into danger and has to be rescued? (Classic sidekick behavior) What you see as broken can just as easily be a chance to introduce new, fun elements into the game.
Yes, cohorts can provide plot hooks and interest elements. But it's my opinion that things like leadership should be done through roleplay rather than something mechanical like a feat. YMMV.

Darkxarth
2010-06-15, 04:21 PM
I am currently playing a Half-Elf Sorcerer in a Pathfinder game and am taking the Destined Bloodline which gives me the ability to take the Leadership feat at 7th level. My character is a stage magician (taking ranks and bonuses in Sleight of Hand for card tricks, et al) and his Cohort is going to be a female Rogue or Bard to act as his "lovely assistant." My DM will be playing the Cohort (according to him) but even if I were playing her, she would stay in a support role or end up "watching the horses" off camera.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-15, 04:30 PM
Leadership can be great just to bring you a mount for your Spirited Charger warrior.

PId6
2010-06-15, 04:36 PM
Leadership can be great just to bring you a mount for your Spirited Charger warrior.
Wild Cohort (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) tends to be a better (and less broken) way to get a mount.

Mauther
2010-06-15, 04:41 PM
While I hate cohorts, I do understand they can be useful for covering shortcomings in a team so I reluctantly allow them. That being said, if they die they die; none of the second chances, extended death’s door, benefit of the doubt rulings that PCs might get. And I do make the death effect as gruesome and traumatic as possible so as to ruin their gear when possible. I had one party that made a tidy profit off of the salvage of their dead retainers. So now that failed balance check leads to a plunge into a bottomless pit, or that fatal crit from a dragon results in the npc cleric getting eaten whole, etc.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-15, 04:47 PM
Wild Cohort (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) tends to be a better (and less broken) way to get a mount.
I took the feat, with DM permission, in a short lived campaign as my mount was VERY special to my character.
He was a feebleminded wizard permanently polymorphed into a large dog and I was his raven familiar polymorphed into a halfling.

jiriku
2010-06-15, 04:47 PM
Leadership is a load of fun.

As a player, I frequently take it in order to have my own personal healbot following me around. In my play groups, typically either no one wants to heal or the healer does it badly, so it's nice to be able to ensure that there will be a character in the party whose top priority is making sure everyone else lives.

As a DM, I enjoy character-building and don't get to do enough of it, so making the NPCs is fun for me. Plus, a cohort gives me an in-character voice in the party that I can use to guide players away from especially foolhardy choices and towards locations and actitivities that I think will be fun for them. It's also a great opportunity to create depth in the game through pure roleplaying and references to events, people, and places in the game world.

Mauther
2010-06-15, 04:48 PM
If the nerf is good enough that it takes a gestalt Wizard//Artificer to break it, it's good enough. (I also don't consider it a nerf, as much as a rather broad reading of the word "caused" in the Leadership rules).

Its a houserule, but I don't let my players build their cohort. They tell me what they want in general (a healer, tracker, bodyguard, etc) and I build a serviceable but not uber optimized character to meet those needs. It takes most of the major pain out of the feat.

On the -2, I apply it anytime the retainer dies in the PCs service. It doesn't matter if the PC caused it directly. If you keep going back into town looking to hire replacement redshirts, your going to get lower and lower quality. That it's not the PCs fault that redshirts 1-12 are dead doesn't really matter all that much. All they care about is that taking a job with Waldo the Magnificent results in death. If your good and kind and take care of them while their alive the other bonuses will compensate for the -2. But no matter how nice Waldo the Mag is, people will still remember the Jenkins boy went into the dungeon with him and didn't come back out. That kind of talk hurts recruitment.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-15, 04:57 PM
Wild Cohort (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) tends to be a better (and less broken) way to get a mount.

I like that feat - but it does not cover all the bases.

Thrawn183
2010-06-15, 04:59 PM
I never allow Leadership. The only player I know who wants to use it is the same one who wants to use metamorphosis cheese in a party with a TWF Fighter. So yeah, I don't let it near my games. Violently.

jiriku
2010-06-15, 05:00 PM
Its a houserule, but I don't let my players build their cohort. They tell me what they want in general (a healer, tracker, bodyguard, etc) and I build a serviceable but not uber optimized character to meet those needs. It takes most of the major pain out of the feat.

Actually, your "houserule" is the actual RAW for the feat. I know a lot of DMs who are too lazy to build the character, though, and they often end up regretting that laziness.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-15, 05:00 PM
I like that feat - but it does not cover all the bases.
It gives you a mount that improves, somewhat, as you level. It's better then nothing and it is much more thematic then taking levels in druid when you want to be a mounted knight.

Khaladon
2010-06-15, 05:06 PM
LOL well said Mauther and Thrawn183 :smallsmile:

And I'm glad there has been so much strong opinion and debate on this topic back and forth, it's exactly what I was looking for.

Thanks y'all.

Matamane
2010-06-15, 05:11 PM
Do what Vaarsuvius does, or compromise something similar.

Until you dignify its existence, it doesn't

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-15, 05:13 PM
It gives you a mount that improves, somewhat, as you level. It's better then nothing and it is much more thematic then taking levels in druid when you want to be a mounted knight.

I meant that if you want something different from an animal it does not help. As is, is a great, useful feat.

Thurbane
2010-06-15, 09:37 PM
I might be a lone voice in the wilderness here, but I don't believe the Leadership feat is neccessarily broken. It all depends on the DM and player really.

DM lets you play it as a 2nd PC, is usually broken.

DM runs it as a DMPC, and doesn't let the player have any control is usually broken.

DM plays it as an NPC who shows a reasonable amount of loyalty and servitude to the PC is usually fine.

...i.e. if, as a player, you want to take this feat, discuss it with your DM. In most groups, a reasonable usage of this Feat is entirely achievable.

okpokalypse
2010-06-16, 12:03 AM
Actually, your "houserule" is the actual RAW for the feat. I know a lot of DMs who are too lazy to build the character, though, and they often end up regretting that laziness.

I'm glad you mentioned that. Part of the Leadership feat is a test to one's roleplay if you choose to assume the control of said cohort.

My DMs have been gracious enough in the past to allow me my build after discussing what I intended with it - but the DM has always assigned personality, traits, fears, beliefs, etc... My last PC w/ Leadership was a NG Favored Soul of Correlon Larethian. We had a party with no track/rogue/ranger/scout type, so I wanted to attempt to attract one.

I was given an Elven Scout that had confidence and mild cowardice/paranoia issues. It was actually quite a bit of fun to have my cohort refuse to disarm a trap because "it looked to difficult" and "I don't want to lose my hand." I also made sure his build was almost purely skillful or secondary in melee. He would hanstring in combat and pretty much all his other feats went to things like Quick Reconnoiter, Blind Sense, Hear the Unseen, Tactile Trapsmith, etc..

The core issue around leadership is always who the person is that's playing the character with the feat. If you're going to make an uber cohort as a buff-bot or meat shield for your normal PC with no RP interaction between the two or between the cohort and the party - then you take it away. I've seen Cohorts made around 1 spell. Alter Fortue. It just kept granting rerolls it's entire career, and rarely levelled cause it kept blowing XP to cast it. Talk about cheese :)

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-16, 02:12 AM
...i.e. if, as a player, you want to take this feat, discuss it with your DM. In most groups, a reasonable usage of this Feat is entirely achievable.

QFT. Is just another option.. I really don't see how can be more broken than 50% of the game if used in a RAW-tarded way.

Greymane
2010-06-16, 03:29 AM
My theories echo Thurbane's input on the matter.

However, when we've played, Cohorts and (to a lesser extent) Paladin mounts, have proven to be quite capable combatants in their own rights in the past. This has never been a problem, though, as we're all friends and we don't do anything truly stupid (except for me).

In fact, the players are so intent on roleplaying their characters well, that the Leadership feat has only come up once, as it made sense for the character to have. Even then, it happened to be an ogre, wasn't optimized, and really was there as more scenery than anything. Oh, he could carry stuff. Man could he carry stuff.

Though the big lovable giant did get turned evil by a Deck of Many Things. :smallfrown:

gibbo88
2010-06-16, 05:32 AM
I'd like to quote Uncle Ben for this one - "With great power comes great responsibility". If you take on the responsibility to use the cohort appropriately then be expected to use it right or be prepared to have it taken away from you.

One of my current games has 3 players and we all have a cohort, a fighter, a barbarian and a kobold sorceror. We haven't run into any problems purely because we run them as something to assist rather then cannon fodder. Though granted the fighter and the barbarian are the melee shields. They all have their own backstories and reasons for travelling with the PCs. We leave them on our ship when we have all three of us at that session, since we don't really need the power and it makes it easier for everyone. I'm actually hoping we get a mission where we get to use the three cohort to rescue the hero's.

Sounds more like the original poster has had a bad experience with someone else's cohort stealing the limelight or "powergaming" with the cohort. I don't see that its any different to an animal companion, special mount or anything else that you can now acquire through a feat.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-16, 05:35 AM
I'd like to quote Uncle Ben for this one - "With great power comes great responsibility".

Didn't he said that he knows best? :smallconfused:

monkey3
2010-06-17, 02:02 PM
It's been banned in every game I've ran or played in, that to me says it all.

Agreed. (Don't say the same thing about ToB, or you will be killed)

There is the secondary issue with cohorts that as a second character, they give the player more (twice) share of the spotlight. Since "air-time" is a constant, any extra time you take, comes at a comes of another player's time, or the session as a whole.

You'd argue this should be self-governing, and a person who is a time-hog will be a time-hog regardless of an additional cohort. I'll say that a cohort is an extra time-hog on top of everything else.

My beef with cohorts (as real-life time-hogs) can therefore be extended to henchmen, DMPCs, Animal companions, and familiars.

I knew a person who was a spotlight-hog. Once, he played a druid. Not only did he have the spotlight more than anyone, so did his AC! Now, the next highest player became #3 on the spotlight meter, as opposed to #2.

Yes, this is a personality problem, but cohorts (etc) make a bad problem worse. They also make a non-problem, into likely problem. You don't give a serial killer an extra machete.

Morph Bark
2010-06-17, 02:28 PM
...heh.

Hehehe.

Reminds me I once had a character with Leadership in a Gestalt campaign.

*casts Quickened Protection From Thrown Rocks, Vegetables and Fruit*

Hey, I hadn't even said yet that he never even got a cohort! Plus, he was already a level lower than the rest of the party due to needing to be reincarnated.

There was one other character in a later campaign who obtained Leadership, but he only ever had a cohort and no followers, and his cohort was only a child, plus they had saved him from an angry mob and the player and been thinking about it for a while, so there was foreshadowing. In future campaigns we plan on having it handled purely RP-wise, no Leadership feat at all.

Friend Computer
2010-06-17, 02:44 PM
I might be a lone voice in the wilderness here, but I don't believe the Leadership feat is neccessarily broken. It all depends on the DM and player really.

DM lets you play it as a 2nd PC, is usually broken.

DM runs it as a DMPC, and doesn't let the player have any control is usually broken.

DM plays it as an NPC who shows a reasonable amount of loyalty and servitude to the PC is usually fine.

...i.e. if, as a player, you want to take this feat, discuss it with your DM. In most groups, a reasonable usage of this Feat is entirely achievable.
This. Playing as a focussed enchanter who banned very nice schools for the sake of flavour, I made up for it with retainers. They were just low level hired mercs at low levels, slowly increasing in number until I gained leadership at which point they became followers, and one was promoted to cohort. They were all warriors and experts, were a considerable drain on my gold (I had to pay their wages, which to ensure loyalty was a couple of SP higher than the RAW price, with weekly bonuses, and I had to fork out for any extra weaponry I wanted them equipped with anything more than the starting load-out) so while giving a massive boost to low level damage output and skill access (mostly just spot/listen/search), were mostly only useful for standing around and looking impressive.

And that's all I wanted them for.

Khaladon
2010-06-24, 10:56 PM
Well, as I said in the original post, mostly what I was looking for was some healthy and friendly debate on this issue, and I couldn't be more pleased with the amount and variety of opinions this thread has received.

I can't recall any specific bad experiences with cohorts, but it's more of an in general peeve. I tend not to enjoy so much the aspects of the game which lend to easy abuse and even less so those who take advantage of that abuse potential. Just takes away from the fun and challenge of it all. But of course this is just MHO, and I know and am friends with folk to like nothing more than to bend the rules as far as they can possibly go (or even break them when they can get away with it)

I have read some enlightening posts in this thread and am in full agreement that, used properly (ie responsibly and with DM input and/or control) cohorts can be a useful and even fun element of the game.

So, once again, thanks so much everyone for all your fantastic input. :smallsmile:

Now on to the Next peeve....:smallamused:

Mystic Muse
2010-06-24, 11:08 PM
Well the cohort is an npc and therefore played by the dm and not the player :smalltongue: While this diminishes the return a bit leadership or the cohort feats are still broken, I agree with that :smallwink:

How is it broken if the DM controls it? If the DM controls it, (Which, by RAW he may. I can't really tell) I would never take the feat. He can do whatever the heck he wants if he controls it.

Also, does the SRD take errata into account? Because, if so, I can't find where it says the DM Builds the character. (I would also never use it if this was the case.)

If I make a powerful cohort, it's because I want a contingency if things are looking really bad. Not because I want to end every encounter in one shot. I want the other players to feel like they're contributing too.

Khellendross
2010-06-25, 12:27 AM
Having the leadership feat is almost no different than a druid with a decked out animal companion. The leadership can certainly add a lot of power to a character but if a fighter takes the feat and gets a blink dog cohort it's still far less powerful of a character than a Druid with his animal companion.

Choco
2010-06-25, 08:45 AM
Leadership is a great way to help bring the martial characters closer to casters in terms of power. Let the martial character take leadership if they want, them fielding an army is still less broken than a straight wizard. That being said, I have taken the leadership feat even in a game where I already had an army. The cohort/followers I got from leadership represented my most loyal and trusted minions.

EDIT:

Also, does the SRD take errata into account? Because, if so, I can't find where it says the DM Builds the character. (I would also never use it if this was the case.)

If I make a powerful cohort, it's because I want a contingency if things are looking really bad. Not because I want to end every encounter in one shot. I want the other players to feel like they're contributing too.

It says that the player can attract cohorts, and can *TRY* to attract a specific race/class, *UP TO* the max level indicated by your leadership score. The DM can technically stick your lvl 20 character with a lvl 12 fighter when you were looking for a lvl 17 wizard, cause no lvl 17 wizards are around. Of course most players would pitch a fit if the DM "nerfed their build" like that, so it is never used that way.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-25, 12:53 PM
L

It says that the player can attract cohorts, and can *TRY* to attract a specific race/class, *UP TO* the max level indicated by your leadership score. The DM can technically stick your lvl 20 character with a lvl 12 fighter when you were looking for a lvl 17 wizard, cause no lvl 17 wizards are around. Of course most players would pitch a fit if the DM "nerfed their build" like that, so it is never used that way.

Tell that to my DM. He rules that any cohort comes in at half your character level. He does let you build them but still.

Khellendross
2010-06-25, 01:37 PM
It says that the player can attract cohorts, and can *TRY* to attract a specific race/class, *UP TO* the max level indicated by your leadership score. The DM can technically stick your lvl 20 character with a lvl 12 fighter when you were looking for a lvl 17 wizard, cause no lvl 17 wizards are around. Of course most players would pitch a fit if the DM "nerfed their build" like that, so it is never used that way.

That or a 17th level wizard wouldn't be caught dead following a lowly fighter lol

Mystic Muse
2010-06-25, 01:39 PM
That or a 17th level wizard wouldn't be caught dead following a lowly fighter lol

The 17th level wizard could be a childhood friend of the fighter. I have a background all set up for a cohort if my DM will let me use her. I can't get her for another two levels though and it sounds like two players are joining anyway so we probably won't need her.

I'm a homebrew Paladin though. Not a fighter.

Gnaeus
2010-06-25, 01:48 PM
There is another use for Cohorts that I don't think anyone has specifically mentioned.

Filling in for absent players in games with erratic attendance.

You get the cohort, write it up. If Bob and Jane don't show up that night, their characters don't make it to the tavern, and the cohort comes into play. Otherwise, the cohort is busy. Maybe there is a low power backup feat that you get (like toughness, or weapon focus) when your cohort isn't playing, maybe not.

This way, if you know the healer or the trapfinder is erratic, you don't have to sweat whether they will make it to that game. The DM doesn't have to adjust his prepared encounters on the fly, which some DMs are really bad at.

This rule sometimes gets used for living campaigns that play at tournaments, where the adventure is written for a 5-6 person party, and may not be playable with 4, but you have 4 players who want to play.

2xMachina
2010-06-25, 02:02 PM
I'd rather you just do a DM/NPC for the replacements though. Spending a feat that does nothing, except now and then isn't exactly useful.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-25, 02:04 PM
I'd rather you just do a DM/NPC for the replacements though. Spending a feat that does nothing, except now and then isn't exactly useful.

Isn't that what all feats do? You can't use every feat of yours in every situation.

2xMachina
2010-06-25, 02:10 PM
But a feat that only works when someone decides not to come? Unless your fellow players skip sessions frequently, it doesn't help much.

And the feats people take are the ones which is always useful. Even the stupid Toughness, or Weapon Focus. No matter what, you have +3 HP, or +1 roll (unless you've been stripped of weapons, which should happen rarely).

Now, players skipping sessions? That should happen rarely, and makes the feat useful only rarely.

Zeful
2010-06-25, 02:14 PM
It says that the player can attract cohorts, and can *TRY* to attract a specific race/class, *UP TO* the max level indicated by your leadership score. The DM can technically stick your lvl 20 character with a lvl 12 fighter when you were looking for a lvl 17 wizard, cause no lvl 17 wizards are around. Of course most players would pitch a fit if the DM "nerfed their build" like that, so it is never used that way.

I take this stance on leadership. I build the cohort, if the player pitches a fit about it I refer them to the exact wording of the feat. If they still whine, I kick them out. I've better things to do with my time.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-25, 02:15 PM
But a feat that only works when someone decides not to come? Unless your fellow players skip sessions frequently, it doesn't help much.

And the feats people take are the ones which is always useful. Even the stupid Toughness, or Weapon Focus. No matter what, you have +3 HP, or +1 roll (unless you've been stripped of weapons, which should happen rarely).

Now, players skipping sessions? That should happen rarely, and makes the feat useful only rarely.

I'd still take it over toughness personally.

Of course, my DM gives us max health at each level so toughness is pretty much useless.

Choco
2010-06-25, 02:20 PM
I take this stance on leadership. I build the cohort, if the player pitches a fit about it I refer them to the exact wording of the feat. If they still whine, I kick them out. I've better things to do with my time.

I wish more DM's had the cojones to do that. Would do wonders for the entitlement attitude a lot of players have.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-25, 02:23 PM
Yes I feel entitled to how the cohort is built and how they're used. The same way I feel entitled how and when to use power attack and my class features. If I'm going to spend a feat on something I expect to be able to use it the way I want. Not how the DM wants me to use it. If the DM is going to control the building of the character or how the character acts, they're not worth a feat to me.

Choco
2010-06-25, 02:27 PM
Yes I feel entitled to how the cohort is built and how they're used. The same way I feel entitled how and when to use power attack and my class features. If I'm going to spend a feat on something I expect to be able to use it the way I want. Not how the DM wants me to use it. If the DM is going to control the building of the character or how the character acts, they're not worth a feat to me.

Which is likely why most DM's just ban the feat. If it don't exist, you don't gotta argue about it.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-25, 02:29 PM
Which is likely why most DM's just ban the feat. If it don't exist, you don't gotta argue about it.

That's fine. I don't expect to use leadership often if at all. But if you're going to allow it, and expect me to take it, I'm not going to do so if the DM controls the build of the character or how the character acts.

2xMachina
2010-06-25, 02:31 PM
A balance could work.

Tell the Dm what type you want. You want a lvl 17 wizard? Done, but he can't be an Incantatrix/IOTSV or other cheese build.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-25, 02:34 PM
A balance could work.

Tell the Dm what type you want. You want a lvl 17 wizard? Done, but he can't be an Incantatrix/IOTSV or other cheese build.

Okay then. Wizard 5 Malconvoker 5 frost mage 7.

I doubt that's broken.

Although, since with that build I wouldn't get ninth level spells anyway I'd probably go with wizard 5, Sorceror 2 ultimate magus 10 or Warlock 3 wizard 4 Eldritch theurge 10. Probably the latter since it fits the character better.

Zeful
2010-06-25, 02:37 PM
Yes I feel entitled to how the cohort is built and how they're used. The same way I feel entitled how and when to use power attack and my class features. If I'm going to spend a feat on something I expect to be able to use it the way I want. Not how the DM wants me to use it. If the DM is going to control the building of the character or how the character acts, they're not worth a feat to me.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly you want the feat to work to your best advantage automatically, rather than having to work for it as the feat implies?

No. Not in my games. Leadership is broken enough without it giving you everything you want automatically. If you want a specific Race, Class and Feat distribution you have to work for it, roleplay, send out advertisements, interview candidates. And so on. Odd are decent that if you where to look for what you want you'll find someone appropriate for you're cohort, probably shy a few levels, and a with slightly different ability scores, but if you take the feat and expect both it and me to cater to your every whim, the answer is a resounding: No.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-25, 02:38 PM
So, if I'm understanding you correctly you want the feat to work to your best advantage automatically, rather than having to work for it as the feat implies?

No. Not in my games. Leadership is broken enough without it giving you everything you want automatically. If you want a specific Race, Class and Feat distribution you have to work for it, roleplay, send out advertisements, interview candidates. And so on. Odd are decent that if you where to look for what you want you'll find someone appropriate for you're cohort, probably shy a few levels, and a with slightly different ability scores, but if you take the feat and expect both it and me to cater to your every whim, the answer is a resounding: No.

Then I simply wouldn't take the feat. It's all or nothing and if it doesn't allow me to use it how I want it's not worth using at all.

Gnaeus
2010-06-25, 02:50 PM
But a feat that only works when someone decides not to come? Unless your fellow players skip sessions frequently, it doesn't help much.

And the feats people take are the ones which is always useful. Even the stupid Toughness, or Weapon Focus. No matter what, you have +3 HP, or +1 roll (unless you've been stripped of weapons, which should happen rarely).

Now, players skipping sessions? That should happen rarely, and makes the feat useful only rarely.

I've played through college, and after college I played with potheads. There are a lot of campaigns out there where you have no idea who will actually be at the game unless you call them individually 30 minutes before, and even then it isn't a sure thing. It sure doesn't make me happy, but it happens.

And as I said, some DMs who allow this kind of floating cohort will let the player pick a backup feat for use when all or most players show.


That's fine. I don't expect to use leadership often if at all. But if you're going to allow it, and expect me to take it, I'm not going to do so if the DM controls the build of the character or how the character acts.

My DM is writing up my cohort right now. I think having a loyal spellcasting minion who lives in town and works on my behalf is more than worth a feat. I gave him a list of half a dozen classes I thought would work and some things I want him to be able to do and I plan to be pleased with whatever he gives me. Its kinda exciting.

When I DM, I always write up cohorts.

Caphi
2010-06-25, 02:56 PM
I've played through college, and after college I played with potheads. There are a lot of campaigns out there where you have no idea who will actually be at the game unless you call them individually 30 minutes before, and even then it isn't a sure thing. It sure doesn't make me happy, but it happens.

And as I said, some DMs who allow this kind of floating cohort will let the player pick a backup feat for use when all or most players show.



My DM is writing up my cohort right now. I think having a loyal spellcasting minion who lives in town and works on my behalf is more than worth a feat. I gave him a list of half a dozen classes I thought would work and some things I want him to be able to do and I plan to be pleased with whatever he gives me. Its kinda exciting.

When I DM, I always write up cohorts.

Since you can just use GMPCs for this, taking the feat is a waste. Unless you don't provide filler members unless there are Leadership feats in the party, in which case you're feat taxing players for real world issues. There's no way this ends well.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-25, 02:56 PM
My DM is writing up my cohort right now. I think having a loyal spellcasting minion who lives in town and works on my behalf is more than worth a feat. I gave him a list of half a dozen classes I thought would work and some things I want him to be able to do and I plan to be pleased with whatever he gives me. Its kinda exciting.

When I DM, I always write up cohorts.

And if that works for you that's fine. Just don't expect it to work for me.

Gnaeus
2010-06-25, 03:04 PM
Since you can just use GMPCs for this, taking the feat is a waste. Unless you don't provide filler members unless there are Leadership feats in the party, in which case you're feat taxing players for real world issues. There's no way this ends well.

I can't speak for everyone, but I sure don't provide filler members. I do more or less what Living Greyhawk and similar con games did. I tell them that I wrote my adventure for who I expected to be there. They can play it, and risk death, or go home, or we can play Settlers of Catan or Arkham Horror. Then I let them bitch out their less reliable compatriots. It worked OK.

Mauther
2010-06-25, 03:07 PM
I think my main problem with the cohorts is the roleplaying aspect. If I let the player design and run it, then I am essentially letting 1 player have a second PC. If I’m going to go that route I’d rather just open the game up to multiple PCs per player and be done with the whole NPC nonsense. I mean, seriously, how can you have a player controlling an NPC and still call it a Non Player Character.

While I usually run the cohorts as DM, I don’t really like that either. As DM, I’m usually already controlling multiple NPCs already, either in combat or in a social scene, so I can find myself getting bogged down on my side which isn’t fair to the players. Additionally I constantly find myself second guessing decisions for fear of metagaming. If I’m playing a cohort healer, would I really prepare that many Restorations or am I using out of character knowledge that there will be some level drains that will need to be sorted? If it’s a cohort rogue, would I really remember to search that one stretch of empty corridor where the secret door is? I end up second guessing myself more than its worth.

I have no problem with followers. The discrepancy between power levels between the party and even the strongest follower is so great that they provide almost no real mechanical value. But for adventurers who have a holding like a keep or a tower, loyal followers a certainly worth it.

Caphi
2010-06-25, 03:18 PM
I can't speak for everyone, but I sure don't provide filler members. I do more or less what Living Greyhawk and similar con games did. I tell them that I wrote my adventure for who I expected to be there. They can play it, and risk death, or go home, or we can play Settlers of Catan or Arkham Horror. Then I let them bitch out their less reliable compatriots. It worked OK.

In which case you still don't use Leadership for providing filler.

Gnaeus
2010-06-25, 03:38 PM
In which case you still don't use Leadership for providing filler.

No, they could take leadership to replace missing party members. Sorry, thought that was understood by context of discussion. That reduced the chance of death if they chose the Play Anyway option.

The only problems were the rare occasions when people didn't want other party members to come, because Bob's cleric cohort was better than Joe's ninja, or whatever. But as we were all friends and wanted to play together, that wasn't a big issue.

Choco
2010-06-25, 03:46 PM
The only problems were the rare occasions when people didn't want other party members to come, because Bob's cleric cohort was better than Joe's ninja, or whatever. But as we were all friends and wanted to play together, that wasn't a big issue.

Ugh, yeah, that aint fun. Really the only thing worse than constantly being outshined by another party member is constantly being outshined by that party member's tag-along NPC.

Caphi
2010-06-25, 04:04 PM
No, they could take leadership to replace missing party members. Sorry, thought that was understood by context of discussion. That reduced the chance of death if they chose the Play Anyway option.

The only problems were the rare occasions when people didn't want other party members to come, because Bob's cleric cohort was better than Joe's ninja, or whatever. But as we were all friends and wanted to play together, that wasn't a big issue.

So you don't supply GMPCs, you just let the game fall out... unless the players paid you a feat tax, in which case they do get the GMPC. If the group is really so unstable, this is like holding entire game hostage for a feat slot.

Why don't you just fill out the party when it's underpopulated, and let them keep their feat?

Gnaeus
2010-06-25, 04:15 PM
So you don't supply GMPCs, you just let the game fall out... unless the players paid you a feat tax, in which case they do get the GMPC. If the group is really so unstable, this is like holding entire game hostage for a feat slot.

Why don't you just fill out the party when it's underpopulated, and let them keep their feat?

In my experience, Cohorts, which the DMs make at the players request and which the players play, are vastly less destabilizing than DMPCs, which are a train wreck waiting to happen.

Caphi
2010-06-25, 04:28 PM
In my experience, Cohorts, which the DMs make at the players request and which the players play, are vastly less destabilizing than DMPCs, which are a train wreck waiting to happen.

That is entirely up to the GM and his GMPC design. The term "GMPC" is a four-letter word because it's associated with a specific type of omnipresent, overtly heroic NPC that takes over the game. It's trivial to build one that does no more than fill a role in the party - a mercenary, assistant, or escort. If the players are built well enough, a simple straight-classed NPC with a basic support setup can fit in nicely. I've supplied a support cleric to my own party two levels above the party level just to babysit so that I could judge their power level.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-25, 06:14 PM
I have used GMPC's in the past, like a cleric for a party that lacks much in the way of divine support or healing of anykind. Essentially I write up the character I roleplay the quirks and personality traits and other outside of combat situations but another player controls them in combat.

If I was to ever allow cohort It be a strait up bard, no PrC. While the PC is getting a second character to control they are limited to a very supportive based class.

Gnaeus
2010-06-25, 06:59 PM
That is entirely up to the GM and his GMPC design. The term "GMPC" is a four-letter word because it's associated with a specific type of omnipresent, overtly heroic NPC that takes over the game. It's trivial to build one that does no more than fill a role in the party -

I couldn't disagree more, but refuse to derail a thread on cohorts by engaging in a flame war on DMPCs, which is where that topic usually goes.

Caphi
2010-06-25, 07:15 PM
I couldn't disagree more, but refuse to derail a thread on cohorts by engaging in a flame war on DMPCs, which is where that topic usually goes.

Just because you (and/or your playgroup) can't make a GMPC without abusing it doesn't mean there's something inherently taboo about NPCs that follow the party around.

Mnemnosyne
2010-06-25, 07:32 PM
My main problem with DM-controlled PC's is when players rely on them for advice. It's hard to give advice with them without either intentionally screwing the players (by giving intentionally bad advice) or giving them way too much info (by accidentally overadvising them). Some people can manage the necessary balance, but I have had great difficulty doing so.

If the PC never really asks for advice, on the other hand, and just forges ahead giving orders, it's pretty easy to give the NPC a personality that doesn't speak up except in the most dire of situations. In those cases it's not an issue at all. Just depends on how the PC behaves with the NPC.

Khaladon
2010-06-25, 10:27 PM
While I'm still very much enjoying the debate on cohorts, if this morphs into a DMPC war I'll simply end the thread. :smallannoyed:

But otherwise keep up the Great Cohort Debate! :smallsmile:

Mystic Muse
2010-06-25, 10:29 PM
While I'm still very much enjoying the debate on cohorts, if this morphs into a DMPC war I'll simply end the thread. :smallannoyed:

But otherwise keep up the Great Cohort Debate! :smallsmile:

Only a mod can end a thread.

However, a DMPC thread generally gets locked.

2xMachina
2010-06-26, 01:30 AM
Hmm, it's pretty sad if your Cohort outshines you...

Say, a fighter 18 too leadership. He chooses a lvl 16 wizard/MS/Incantatrix/IoTSV. Now, the cohort pwns the encounters, making the leadership fighter useless. Thats just sad... Go play a Wizard instead.

A cohort should be used for support/tank wall. Not as the main dish.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-26, 06:04 AM
Hmm, it's pretty sad if your Cohort outshines you...

Say, a fighter 18 too leadership. He chooses a lvl 16 wizard/MS/Incantatrix/IoTSV. Now, the cohort pwns the encounters, making the leadership fighter useless. Thats just sad... Go play a Wizard instead.

A cohort should be used for support/tank wall. Not as the main dish.

In the game I run, due to the PC's class being something like Bard 5/Rogue 2/Wizard 1/Seeker of the Song 5, his cohort outshines him to the point that the cohort is his combat stand-in and the PC merely buffs him up.

I blame myself for this, though. At one point I grew weary of running the cohort as an NPC and turned all combat decisions for his actions over to the player.

Doug Lampert
2010-06-26, 10:21 AM
How is it broken if the DM controls it? If the DM controls it, (Which, by RAW he may. I can't really tell) I would never take the feat. He can do whatever the heck he wants if he controls it.

Also, does the SRD take errata into account? Because, if so, I can't find where it says the DM Builds the character. (I would also never use it if this was the case.)

If I make a powerful cohort, it's because I want a contingency if things are looking really bad. Not because I want to end every encounter in one shot. I want the other players to feel like they're contributing too.

It's an NPC, those are ALWAYS built and controlled by the DM, and there's NOTHING in the rules in the PHB or DMG that would say otherwise, in fact the rules are quite clear if you read them that this is built by the DM, others have quoted the exact wording of the feat and there's no ambiguity.

It's never called a second PC, it's always an NPC and always has been.

In other posts you keep complaining that if you can't control it you won't take the feat. GOOD! I don't want you taking a feat that you plan to use in ways that completely violate the plain text of the rules for that feat and will complain about if the DM insists on following the rules.

Even RAW it's STILL far and away the most powerful feat in the game.

Khaladon
2010-06-26, 01:08 PM
Only a mod can end a thread.

However, a DMPC thread generally gets locked.

Ya, what you said...:smallwink:

Mystic Muse
2010-06-26, 03:04 PM
It's an NPC, those are ALWAYS built and controlled by the DM, and there's NOTHING in the rules in the PHB or DMG that would say otherwise, in fact the rules are quite clear if you read them that this is built by the DM, others have quoted the exact wording of the feat and there's no ambiguity.

It's never called a second PC, it's always an NPC and always has been. So, if the player controls the NPC it automatically makes it a PC?




In other posts you keep complaining that if you can't control it you won't take the feat. GOOD! I don't want you taking a feat that you plan to use in ways that completely violate the plain text of the rules for that feat and will complain about if the DM insists on following the rules.

Even RAW it's STILL far and away the most powerful feat in the game.

No, according to what you say it is the weakest feat in the game. Even other feats will give you static bonuses. This feat? gives you an NPC that the DM controls and makes and can do whatever the heck he wants with

Why do I have to spend a feat to get an NPC? And from what I can see of RAW there is nothing to suggest that the DM builds the character or that he controls it. Heck, it never evens says the character is an NPC! The only reference to NPCs in the entire feat is followers. If the DM controls and builds the character why doesn't the feat just say so? As written I can't see any reason I don't build and control the character.

If the DM bans leadership? That's fine with me. It is far and away one of, if not the most powerful feat in the game according to my reading, I admit that. However, unless you have a DM who can optimize well and/or isn't a jerk this will be easily be one of the weakest feats in the game.

If I want an NPC I can't control I'll hire somebody to come with me.

I'm not even saying this is the way it should be read. I'm saying this is the way I read it and if it doesn't work that way, I'm not going to use the feat.

Tiki Snakes
2010-06-26, 03:16 PM
If I want an NPC I can't control I'll hire somebody to come with me.

I'm not even saying this is the way it should be read. I'm saying this is the way I read it and if it doesn't work that way, I'm not going to use the feat.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Zeful
2010-06-26, 03:22 PM
Why do I have to spend a feat to get an NPC? And from what I can see of RAW there is nothing to suggest that the DM builds the character or that he controls it. Heck, it never evens says the character is an NPC! The only reference to NPCs in the entire feat is followers. If the DM controls and builds the character why doesn't the feat just say so? As written I can't see any reason I don't build and control the character.Because you are recruiting a follower from the NPC population. That means that the DM creates it because he creates every NPC. And he controls it because it's an NPC. Nothing in the text of the feat indicates that you the player gain any undo control over this character or that you even get to build it.


If the DM bans leadership? That's fine with me. It is far and away one of, if not the most powerful feat in the game according to my reading, I admit that. However, unless you have a DM who can optimize well and/or isn't a jerk this will be easily be one of the weakest feats in the game.Not really if the character is even close to your level and a spell caster, it's pretty much more powerful than almost every other feat. Because of the whole action economy thing.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-26, 03:26 PM
Not really if the character is even close to your level and a spell caster, it's pretty much more powerful than almost every other feat. Because of the whole action economy thing.

Not when the DM can decide to completely screw it over.

2xMachina
2010-06-26, 03:30 PM
However, I believe, the DM should play it as close as the Player wanted. And created as close as the player wanted.

You can choose your cohort after all. If it exists, you could recruit him. Sure, it's hard to find a complicated build, but if you want a Malconvoker, you should get a Malconvoker.

The cohort shouldn't go: "Huh, I'll do what I like."

MidnightOne
2010-06-26, 03:56 PM
You can choose your cohort after all. If it exists, you could recruit him. Sure, it's hard to find a complicated build, but if you want a Malconvoker, you should get a Malconvoker.

The cohort shouldn't go: "Huh, I'll do what I like."

I have a Drow Rogue 10 / Cleric 5 who took the leadership feat. Their primary task is to do his bidding and make sure he's got something to come home to.
It's nice to be able to tell someone else "Go get me <foo>" and not have to role play out the mundane stuff.

nedz
2010-06-26, 05:06 PM
I like cohorts, they give the player something to do when their character is out of action, they can fill in holes in the parties capabilities and they move the group away from the stereotypical "adventurers" paradyme which I find very old.

But then I frequently add NPCs to the party on an ad hoc basis anyway.

I sometimes make the character and I sometimes let the player do this, I have no hard view on this.
I ensure that they are a support character, in general they should be low tier classes.
There will be a roleplay cost (read: opportunity) in taking the leadership feat.
They will be at least two levels below the PCs and get half XPs

I always let the players run them, because I have far too much to do anyway. This applies to all NPCs after a suitable intotroductory period. I will veto ludicrous decisions should the player try anything untoward.

I have never had any problems with them.

In one memorable game two players exchanged their cohorts which created some excellent RP moments, even to the extend of an altercation between a PC and their cohort.

In another game, in which I was a player, we had the Cohort kick the PC out of the party and replace them as the main character, after the PC had committed some faux pas. This was an evil party.

Leadershio is an optional feat; if it fits the type of game you wish to run: use it; if it doesn't: you shuold ban it.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-26, 05:15 PM
Leadership is an optional feat.

It's no more optional than any other feat. All feats are optional.

Heck, the "rules" are just guidelines at best.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-26, 05:21 PM
It's no more optional than any other feat. All feats are optional.

Heck, the "rules" are just guidelines at best.

Leadership specifically says: "Check with you DM before selecting this feat." As far as I know, it's the only feat with that stipulation.

Edit: So, by RAW, your DM can just say "NO" to Leadership.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-26, 05:27 PM
Leadership specifically says: "Check with you DM before selecting this feat." As far as I know, it's the only feat with that stipulation.

Edit: So, by RAW, your DM can just say "NO" to Leadership.

Actually, I've seen a few others that say that in other books. Just not the core ones.

But really, the DM can say "No" to absolutely anything.

Stompy
2010-06-26, 05:33 PM
So whatcha think?

Haven't read the entirety of the post, but characters should earn leadership. Therefore, it should be a bonus feat given to by the DM only.

Also, by the SRD, it suggests that I have to recruit the cohort, meaning that I can give the followers tests to see if they meet my qualifications. Then I choose the one that will best help me (and the others get thrown off of a cliff).

Cohort Level

The character can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of a character’s Leadership score, he can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than himself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level. A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment. The cohort’s alignment may not be opposed to the leader’s alignment on either the law-vs-chaos or good-vs-evil axis, and the leader takes a Leadership penalty if he recruits a cohort of an alignment different from his own.

Otodetu
2010-06-26, 08:03 PM
Leadership is banned. Roleplay that stuff out.

This.

And if you have trouble with book-keeping, get a laptop and install ubuntu, you will never have any trouble with book-keeping again, it is so good to dm with a proper laptop that I cannot dm without any-more.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-27, 12:43 AM
This.

And if you have trouble with book-keeping, get a laptop and install ubuntu, you will never have any trouble with book-keeping again, it is so good to dm with a proper laptop that I cannot dm without any-more.

What feature does Ubuntu have that does this? I have ubuntu and have never seen such a feature.

Stephen_E
2010-06-27, 01:01 AM
The idea that your Cohort should be completely under the players control is somewhat bizzare and unsupported by the rules.
On the otherhand the idea that the Cohort is completley under the DMs control is equally bizzare and unsuported by the rules.

The player mostly runs a cohort because the DM doesn't need the extra work, and the cohort is supposed to be a loyal supporter.
That said the DM is perfectly entitled to step in and take control if the player is abusing the relationship, or the DM thinks some action would be appropriate, or plot useful and not inappropriate.

My current Pathfinder game a couple of us are looking at taking Leadership and getting Pegasus as Cohorts. Assuming the GM can work it into the adventure ok.

Stephen E

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-06-27, 01:24 AM
I don't mind cohorts as long as the player knows that their place is not on the battlefield.

If I take a cohort, that character is not a fellow hero. He or she is my squire, attendant, chronicler, whatever. If I demanded such a person to follow me into a battle with a demon or something, that would be probably one of the most irresponsible, if not downright evil, things I could do. Only a cut-rate stage villain sends people heedlessly into danger, and that's not what I'm about.

Superglucose
2010-06-27, 02:11 AM
I've never really liked the ability to have a cohort along. To me it basically seems like being able to get a gestalt character for the price of a little feat.

And if everyone in the party doesn't have a cohort, then it can easily unbalance the party.

I don't always mind, as some folk know how to use a cohort 'properly' (IMHO) as basically just a tag-along NPC that doesn't get much face-time but is there to help out in a real pinch. But it's those who use it to basically double up their character that can get to me.

I realize that MMV widely on this topic but that's why I made this thread, to hear what others think of the subject. I have no interest in arguing the matter, but if you feel strongly one way or the other about it, or have some solid 'proof' that I'm full of it, I'm welcome to hear it. :smallsmile:

This is just a friendly forum for open discussion and debate on the topic, any who want to insult or argue can go somewhere else.

So whatcha think?


-Leadership: sure, it's good. Too good. Absolutely and totally ridiculously cheesy if abused, in fact. I don't allow it in my games, and neither should you. If you want someone to be able to play two characters, let them do so; if not, forget the cohort, and have followers be an RP thing. I assign it the [Cheese] descriptor.

That's what I think.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-27, 03:15 AM
-Leadership: sure, it's good. Too good. Absolutely and totally ridiculously cheesy if abused, in fact. I don't allow it in my games, and neither should you. If you want someone to be able to play two characters, let them do so; if not, forget the cohort, and have followers be an RP thing. I assign it the [Cheese] descriptor.

Unless they're used as a support character, I admit this is pretty much true.

onthetown
2010-06-27, 08:53 AM
My DM told me that I had the ability to have cohorts, so we agreed that I would get them started and he would play them. I chose a name and a class for each of the cohorts that my characters would get, handed them over to him, and I haven't heard from them since. It's implied that they really are there, they're just not talkative. I don't mind because I'm already so confused by numbers and basic math that it gives me much less to worry about. When I'm in a pinch, I forget that they're there and solve the issue on my own.

However, my bard's Charisma score gives her the capability of creating a small army of followers. Nothing says "Intimidate" like 70 people standing behind you, ready to follow up on those 'empty' threats.

Oslecamo
2010-06-27, 09:02 AM
Also, by the SRD, it suggests that I have to recruit the cohort, meaning that I can give the followers tests to see if they meet my qualifications. Then I choose the one that will best help me (and the others get thrown off of a cliff).

Indeed a very important detail. By leadership's text, it's the DM who chooses the build of the cohort, not the player. He can try to get a pimped wizard/incantrix, but by RAW the DM can just hand him a truenamer whitout ranks in truespeak if the player tries to be a smartass.

I actualy once had a cleric on my party take leadership, and the "candidates" that showed up were basically a paladin and a monk(we already had a sorceror, other cleric, a druid, a wizard and a fighter/barbarian/cleric). Since our party wasn't exactly goody two shoes we ended up taking the monk. It provided a nice distraction for the devils we were fighting.:smallbiggrin:

Choco
2010-06-27, 09:14 AM
I don't mind cohorts as long as the player knows that their place is not on the battlefield.

If I take a cohort, that character is not a fellow hero. He or she is my squire, attendant, chronicler, whatever. If I demanded such a person to follow me into a battle with a demon or something, that would be probably one of the most irresponsible, if not downright evil, things I could do. Only a cut-rate stage villain sends people heedlessly into danger, and that's not what I'm about.

That's a good point. My cohorts don't participate in most combats unless they are only 2-3 levels behind me, at which point they are strong enough to take care of themselves. Usually they are either in charge of the defenses of my home base, errand runners, squires, "bodyguards" that take care of low lvl mooks for me so I can focus on the big bad, etc.


However, my bard's Charisma score gives her the capability of creating a small army of followers. Nothing says "Intimidate" like 70 people standing behind you, ready to follow up on those 'empty' threats.

Ah yes, one of the maybe 2 situations where Greater Cleave and that ability that lets you take a 5-foot step between each attack would really come in handy :smallamused:

2xMachina
2010-06-27, 09:19 AM
Indeed a very important detail. By leadership's text, it's the DM who chooses the build of the cohort, not the player. He can try to get a pimped wizard/incantrix, but by RAW the DM can just hand him a truenamer whitout ranks in truespeak if the player tries to be a smartass.

I actualy once had a cleric on my party take leadership, and the "candidates" that showed up were basically a paladin and a monk(we already had a sorceror, other cleric, a druid, a wizard and a fighter/barbarian/cleric). Since our party wasn't exactly goody two shoes we ended up taking the monk. It provided a nice distraction for the devils we were fighting.:smallbiggrin:

You can also keep firing them, until you get the one that's satisfactory.

If I advert for a Brain Op. Doctor, by the Gods, don't reply unless you're at least a doctor.

Choco
2010-06-27, 09:24 AM
You can also keep firing them, until you get the one that's satisfactory.

I have seen this done. PC puts out a call for a cohort, DM decides that every <x> days <y> amount of candidates show up (<y> decreases over time if you stay in the same region). The PC can either take what is available or wait for the next batch, and most of the time they can seek out a previously rejected candidate and hire them on. This way it is all about the time: you can spend a year game time rejecting all potential cohorts, or just take the best one available at the time and run with it.

Stephen_E
2010-06-27, 10:28 AM
Cohort Level
The character can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of a character’s Leadership score, he can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than himself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level. A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment. The cohort’s alignment may not be opposed to the leader’s alignment on either the law-vs-chaos or good-vs-evil axis, and the leader takes a Leadership penalty if he recruits a cohort of an alignment different from his own.

Fairly clearly the PC does have a reasonable chance of getting the cohort of Race/Alignment/Class they want.
And considering that this feat specifies that you only take it with specific permission from your GM, for the GM to basically say "yes, you can take the feat" and then later "no you don't get the cohort you want" is cheating. Plain and simple, and bad GMing.

I persoanlly think one of the best uses of the Cohort part of the feat is to provide a mount that doesn't drop dead at the slightest damage, without requireing the player be a Druid or Paladin.

The other good uses are in a 1-3 person party, to provide a bit more support, and to provide certainposistions without forcing a player to play a class they aren't interested in.

Or as your steward for a fort/keep that is occupied for your followers. This is great for the campaign that has headed into more political/settler than your average campaign.

Can you do this without using the feat? Of course, but that applys to almost everything in 3.5, and was largely run that way in 1st and 2nd. But 3rd ed is the DnD of "we provide the mechanics" so if you don't like that you shouldn't be playing 3.5.

Stephen E

peacenlove
2010-06-27, 11:45 AM
I am currently conducting an experiment with leadership. I combine it with intelligent items to create items that grant (mostly situational or underpowered) feats and skills or cast spells to their owner, replacing the rather lame rules for legendary weapons. For example a greatsword that contains the soul of a legendary warblade would have the weapon focus line of feats for the greatsword, much more hp and would grant ranks to martial lore and sense motive. So now a player has a "cohort" legendary weapon. The upside is that most casting is prohibited since items cannot complete somatic components (and unless they can speak, they cannot complete verbal components either), nor can they wear gear, nor can they craft magic items in downtime.

Dunno how it will go i just gave to an ardent PC of mine the gloves that contain the soul of a psychic warrior to help him in melee combat, will decide later in what to give the other players.

The thing that irritates me in leadership is that is redundant. If there are few PC's i DMPC a support character (so no need for anyone to blow a feat in leadership), and when there are many PC's the lethality of combat increases and in my campaigns it is better to go for many disposable summons rather than an important, money draining (due to resurrections and/or consumable gear) NPC, not to mention the discrepancy in PC's power.

Cogidubnus
2010-06-27, 12:06 PM
Not exactly a cohort, and in a pretty powerful game, but...

I'm playing a F and K's Tomes Knight10/Dragon Lancer 2. My first class feature is a dragon, and the DM ruled her as being 2 CR lower than our level. She's my mount, and really ups my combat power and maneouvrability (Gah, I hate that word). She also has a distinct personality, but I hope the other players don't find her annoying, or a cause for me to spotlight hug. PId6 is in this game, so if they feel like commenting on their feelings about Durgarn, I'd like to know, especially if you feel she's a pest.

mucat
2010-06-27, 12:24 PM
I think Durgarn is a great addition to the game, Cogidubnus. She has a distinct personality and adds a lot to Okia's character.

In general, I think a lot of the arguments against cohorts apply more to real-time games than to PbP ones. Around a gaming table, one of the DM's chief challenges is giving each player enough time in the spotlight. Any time the DM spends on a cohort (or any other NPC party member) comes at the expense of a player. If there are only a few players, this is not such a problem; if there are four or more, it can be a serious one. I wouldn't rule out leadership altogether in such a campaign, but I would make it clear to the players that their cohorts were expected to be offscreen a lot of the time, dealing with matters elsewhere. The chief point of leadership would be that the character and his/her agents can be in more places at once, not that they can have extra people on hand in the main adventure.

In a PbP, on the other hand, there is not the same sense of spotlight time as a zero-sum resource. If having a cohort around lets a player make richer posts and add more to the story, that benefits everyone. And in the case of Okia and Durgarn, I think that's exactly the case; the pair of them add more to the story than either one individually.

PId6
2010-06-27, 02:20 PM
Pretty much as mucat said. PbP follows a different dynamic than games at an actual table, and cohorts detract a lot less from each person's spotlight there (as long as the cohort itself isn't obviously more powerful than the PCs, that is).

There are legitimate uses of cohorts, and a mount is one of them. What I most dislike is the Leadership feat itself, which is so broad and so all-encompassing as to allow pretty much anything. Yes, you can use it for legitimate things such as a research assistant or a mount. You can also use it to get you wizard cohorts more powerful than half the party and double your actions, or artificer cohorts to half your shopping costs and craft your whatever you want. The fact that followers come along for the ride as well automatically is annoying too, since I feel like that should definitely be roleplayed rather than demanded by mechanics.

Satyrus
2010-06-27, 02:47 PM
In my experience cohorts have been nothing much but trouble. I have traditional DMed large groups of between 6-10 people at a time. It is difficult enough keeping everybody on the same page and things moving smoothly and then adding in cohorts tends to slow things to a crawl in addition to annoying other players when one character's turn takes 20 minutes.

The main problem with cohorts is split in how it's approached.

- The DM should have control over the NPC but this is time-consuming and diverts a lot of energy from the rest of the game. If you are able to run a game and control and maintain a bunch of extra NPCs then there shouldn't really be a problem.

- If the DM is too busy and the player's are given control over their cohort then things usually start spiraling out of control quickly unless the player is mature and not a power-gamer.

This second path is the one that I've usually had happen and in several instances the cohorts were used as either item creation factories, healbots or buffers. In only a single instance have a seen a character use his cohort as I believe they should be used, as a way to develop the main character and provide support that is lacked in a group.

I have now banned the leadership feat in my campaigns :smallbiggrin:

Jolee
2010-06-27, 05:08 PM
Leadership has never come up in any of the games I've played, but now that I think about it I don't think it'd be unbalanced. Our games tend to start at low levels and XP is given out at a fast rate so level-ups are really frequent, but character wealth rarely increases very far beyond the starting values*. So the gold price of an exotic saddle or basic equipment for a cohort would raise the opportunity cost to the same level as other feats.

So what I'm getting at here is that player controlled cohorts could (theoretically) be mechanically balanced, it just requires denying a group of mildly optimized players of any gold.


*Wealth Examples: my level 4 character had about 90gp on her (including equipment) on her when she died a couple weeks ago; the only magic items ever purchased or found as loot over the past year and a half of game play was a scroll with a single first level spell and a magic sword of plot that repeatedly got the party into hopeless situations requiring deus ex machinas.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-27, 05:11 PM
Leadership has never come up in any of the games I've played, but now that I think about it I don't think it'd be unbalanced. Our games tend to start at low levels and XP is given out at a fast rate so level-ups are really frequent, but character wealth rarely increases very far beyond the starting values*. So the gold price of an exotic saddle or basic equipment for a cohort would raise the opportunity cost to the same level as other feats.

So what I'm getting at here is that player controlled cohorts could (theoretically) be mechanically balanced, it just requires denying a group of mildly optimized players of any gold.


*Wealth Examples: my level 4 character had about 90gp on her (including equipment) on her when she died a couple weeks ago; the only magic items ever purchased or found as loot over the past year and a half of game play was a scroll with a single first level spell and a magic sword of plot that repeatedly got the party into hopeless situations requiring deus ex machinas.

I hope the DM is scaling down the encounters to make up for greatly reduced WBL

Doug Lampert
2010-06-27, 06:07 PM
Not when the DM can decide to completely screw it over.

The GM can ALWAYS screw you over completely and playing leadership BtB changes NOTHING about this.

The GM wants to screw you, you are screwed, it's not worth discussing.

Hence leadership should be judged based on BtB without any deliberate screwing, the GM makes a reasonable NPC by the rules for building NPCs and has him assist you as a loyal and resonably subservient but also reasonably self-interested NPC.

And it's far and away the most powerful feat in the game.

The GMs ABILITY to screw it doesn't change that at all because it doesn't ADD anything to the GMs already present ability to screw you completely at any time.

wick
2010-06-28, 05:41 AM
IMHO there are many things in DnD that can be abused, particulary if they stray from the core material. That is where the DM comes in.


DMNPC: is a DM created NPC that is created and run by the DM as part of a plot or to help support a party or filling a necessary niche in the party. They should not usually steal the limelight. In some instances may be loaned to players to run so DM can concentrate on running the enemies combat.

Cohort: Like a DMPC in that the DM creates him but is created based on some inputs from the player. In no way should the cohort be some strange mix of prestige classes in order to abuse a combination. i would let the Cohort have maybe 1 prestige class if that. And the Cohort should never be made to order, maybe close but never exact. Unlike the DMPC the cohort is run mostly by the character with the DM stepping in occasionly when the player is making the Cohort act out of alignment or character. Any limelight they steal should reflect on the parent character and there are real issues with a party where a cohort is putting the party to shame (I will concede that a Bard may have a cohort more powerful in combat than himself.)


In the long term game I was playing in we often had DMNPCS in the party but it was not a big deal really. We even had a few cohorts as well, I eventually convinced a silver dragon NPC that we had had numerous encounters with and had sent us on a few missions to be my cohort mount. Sure this change gave me a whole range of influence in combat, but I definitely did not steal the limelight and this turned out to be a much needed boost in power compared to our opponents.

Death of a cohort? That should only count against a PC if they use cohorts/followers like ammunition. If you are in camp and an invisible wizard launches a fireball insta killing a cohort that should not be held against a player. If he tells the cohort to delay the rampaging dragon while he runs away that should. Also, every attempt should be set forth to ressurrect the cohort rather than just getting a new one all the time.

PId6
2010-06-28, 03:36 PM
IMHO there are many things in DnD that can be abused, particulary if they stray from use the core material.
Fixed that for you. Core has the vast majority of unbalanced options; you can easily break the game using just core.

wick
2010-06-29, 05:18 AM
Fixed that for you. Core has the vast majority of unbalanced options; you can easily break the game using just core.


I forgot to specify. I play 3.0 & 3.5 but not 4.0. Maybe that will make a difference in your assesment of the core material.

From the DM point of view it is far easier to limit and know the ramifications of prestige classes, abilities, equipment etc when you use a limited selection of source material with which you are quite familiar. If a player quotes Dragon issue# blah blah blah....I will probably not be familiar with the material at all and if it happens to be abusive then I may not catch the full ramifications at first glance. At least if there are broken core book concepts I am familiar with them and know how they should be tweaked to make them more balanced.

PId6
2010-06-29, 05:45 AM
I forgot to specify. I play 3.0 & 3.5 but not 4.0. Maybe that will make a difference in your assesment of the core material.
Given that this entire discussion has been about 3.5, confusion about that point seems unlikely.


From the DM point of view it is far easier to limit and know the ramifications of prestige classes, abilities, equipment etc when you use a limited selection of source material with which you are quite familiar. If a player quotes Dragon issue# blah blah blah....I will probably not be familiar with the material at all and if it happens to be abusive then I may not catch the full ramifications at first glance. At least if there are broken core book concepts I am familiar with them and know how they should be tweaked to make them more balanced.
Yes, limiting material to things the DM is familiar with is quite reasonable and does help in maintaining balance. However, there is a subset of DMs/players who believe that core is balanced and that all out of core material is overpowered compared to how perfect core is, causing them to ban out of core material and make no attempt to familiarize themselves with them. This belief is blatantly untrue, since there are likely more unbalanced options in the three books of PHB, DMG, and MM1 than there are in any ten supplements you can name (possibly an exaggeration, but not much of one). In fact, it seems unlikely that a DM can be aware of and rectify all the unbalanced options in core alone.