[3.PF] One of my players want to use Leadership. What 'm supposed to do now?

[Fenryr]

Hello! One of my players wants Leadership. He's level 7 and the party is a mixture of 7 and 6. They should end my campaign by maximum level 10.

I've never seen Leadership in action but I've seen lots of posts that complain about the power of Leadership. Should I be scared? Can someone gimmie some advice, please? I don't want to ban it yet (the player is really nice and never uses loop holes or something similar).

[A_S]

It gives him an extra PC. This is obviously a large power boost.

If balancing encounters for a party one person larger isn't going to be too much of a hassle for you, though, and if you're confident there won't be problems with the rest of the party thinking it's unfair that the guy who took leadership now gets to be twice as effective, there's not necessarily anything wrong with it. And cohorts can lead to fun role-playing scenarios.

[jaybird]

Hello! One of my players wants Leadership. He's level 7 and the party is a mixture of 7 and 6. They should end my campaign by maximum level 10.

I've never seen Leadership in action but I've seen lots of posts that complain about the power of Leadership. Should I be scared? Can someone gimmie some advice, please? I don't want to ban it yet (the player is really nice and never uses loop holes or something similar).

Well, my GM is allowing it for an upcoming campaign, with the limitations that our cohort can't be on the field, nor can our army.

[deuxhero]

Say no. Pretty sure Leadership is in the DMG, not PHB for this reason.

[Coidzor]

What does the player want as a cohort? What have they said that they wanted to use their followers for? Are you up for making their cohort for them? Do you trust them to make their cohort? What about followers?

Can you deal with an extra 5th level character tagging along with 6th and 7th level ones? What about 2 5th level and 2 4th level characters?

If they have a charisma modifier of 6 (sorcerer with nat 18 in charisma + 2 racial + 2 item for instance), then they'll have a small gang of 1st level followers and a single 2nd level one and end up with a single 3rd level follower, a total of 2 2nd level ones, and a good-sized gang of 1st level characters by the time they finish up if they get no other bonuses to leadership.

If they have a modifier to their leadership score greater than 0, then subtract that from 10 and that's the level they get a small number of followers, which can mostly be used as gofers, porters, and to tend to things like the camp and any animals/prisoners.

If you allow it, you'll want to decide, probably in advance, what you want things like "Special Power" to mean in relation to your campaign and your players' characters' capabilities.


Well, my GM is allowing it for an upcoming campaign, with the limitations that our cohort can't be on the field, nor can our army.

That runs into the opposite problem, spending a feat and getting nothing out of it beyond some fluffy background for roleplaying. And if that's the case, the DM can just give that without taking a feat away from the player.

[Fax Celestis]

That runs into the opposite problem, spending a feat and getting nothing out of it beyond some fluffy background for roleplaying. And if that's the case, the DM can just give that without taking a feat away from the player.

Not necessarily. Taking it in this fashion with, say, a bunch of smiths, weavers, and various other crafters as your basic minions, with your cohort being a crafty wizard or an artificer, lets you basically spend a feat to bypass downtime for item crafting. My wife did this in our Shackled City campaign and reoccupied the dwarven fortress, then started making her minions churn out weaponry to be enchanted or sold.

[Big Fau]

IMO, Leadership is one of those feats that shouldn't be allowed at all unless the DM actually gives it to you. PrCs like Thrallherd should be likewise.

Basically, only let him if he's shown actual leader qualities during game-play and is responsible enough to not abuse the power having a cohort can give him. Alternatively, make the cohort a low-tier class like an Adept or a Healer, but give them a couple of minor buffs so they don't die horribly.


And if you do let him, remember that the cohort isn't his character. He may be the one in control of the cohort's actions (if you allow that), but you can veto the cohort's progression (feats, PrCs, WBL expenditures, etc). Use that authority to keep the cohort from becoming more powerful than a fellow party member.

[Victoria]

I've never had a player specifically take Leadership as a feat in any campaigns I've run, though I occasionally do work "cohorts" (which don't exactly function to the letter of the DMG rules on the leadership) into the campaign, though they are loyal to the party, rather than any individual PC.

However, before deciding upon anything, the most important thing would be to talk to the player who wants to have one of his characters take the feat. Tell him that you have never run a campaign where a PC had the Leadership feat, and while you would follow the rules as written as much as possible, you aren't necessarily comfortable with dealing with its implications and that you might be uncomfortable with some situations related to it, and might amend/ignore certain written rules in order to make yourself more comfortable with handling it in your campaign.

I have given that "speech" once in my entire career as a DM, and in that particular situation, the player simply decided to abandon their aspirations for using the Leadership feat and pursue another path. That said, I can't speculate on what might happen if he decides to take it anyway after digesting what you have to tell him. That's entirely up to you, but if that is the case, at least he would know in advance that you've never DMed a campaign where a PC had the Leadership feat before and things surrounding it might not necessarily work the way the player hoped it to.

[Slipperychicken]

Not necessarily. Taking it in this fashion with, say, a bunch of smiths, weavers, and various other crafters as your basic minions, with your cohort being a crafty wizard or an artificer, lets you basically spend a feat to bypass downtime for item crafting. My wife did this in our Shackled City campaign and reoccupied the dwarven fortress, then started making her minions churn out weaponry to be enchanted or sold.

Your wife received mechanical benefit for the feat (items, reduced craft time), while Coidzor's problem arises when one does not receive *any* mechanical benefit. Your example might perhaps be relevant if the cohort/followers neither reduced craft time, occupied the fortress, or produced useful items.

[CyMage]

Say no. Pretty sure Leadership is in the DMG, not PHB for this reason.

Actually, the feat is in the PHB. The full rules for cohorts and followers are in the DMG.

[Fax Celestis]

Your wife received mechanical benefit for the feat (items, reduced craft time), while Coidzor's problem arises when one does not receive *any* mechanical benefit. Your example might perhaps be relevant if the cohort/followers neither reduced craft time, occupied the fortress, or produced useful items.

The connotation was, though, that if the followers can't be fielded, they're useless. Which isn't the case.

[jiriku]

If you permit the feat, I'd recommend the following:


You build the cohort and all followers. The player may sketch out for you, in broad terms, what he's looking for, but you build the actual characters and assign ability scores, pick feats and spells, allocate skill points, etc.
You continue to make all decisions when leveling the cohort. A player who roleplays well and makes successful Diplomacy checks may be able to influence the cohort's decisions about how to advance, but decision-making authority remains with you.
The player may run cohorts and followers during gameplay as a convenience, but they remain NPCs. You retain veto power and can always state "your cohort wouldn't do that". If the player runs these NPC cohorts in a way that is blatantly inconsistent with their natures, you retain the right to take over the NPCs and run them directly.


By retaining this level of control, you can build the characters at an optimization level that does not overshadow other players, advance them such that they continue to remain in a secondary role, and alter their behavior to prevent any accidental grandstanding or show-stealing. If your player is a considerate player, you'll probably not need to use these checks and balances, but the alternative (writing a blank check and hoping for the best) is a bad precedent to set.

[Coidzor]

You continue to make all decisions when leveling the cohort. A player who roleplays well and makes successful Diplomacy checks may be able to influence the cohort's decisions about how to advance, but decision-making authority remains with you.

How the hell do you even roleplay that out? Flat-out asking them to take a level in fighter for a feat in character just seems like asking for a whole other can of worms to get opened up.


By retaining this level of control, you can build the characters at an optimization level that does not overshadow other players, advance them such that they continue to remain in a secondary role, and alter their behavior to prevent any accidental grandstanding or show-stealing. If your player is a considerate player, you'll probably not need to use these checks and balances, but the alternative (writing a blank check and hoping for the best) is a bad precedent to set.

If you're that worried about them doing that with a cohort, what on earth do you do about their 2 level higher, full wealth and XP progression PC? :smallconfused:

[jiriku]

How the hell do you even roleplay that out? Flat-out asking them to take a level in fighter for a feat in character just seems like asking for a whole other can of worms to get opened up.

I was thinking of more modest examples. For example, a PC wizard with a wizard cohort might say "Let's study different spells in our spare time. I'll share what I learn with you, and you can do the same for me. We'll both learn more spells that way." Alternately, a character might say to his fighter cohort, "Your reflexes in combat are really amazing - you can really hit anyone who lets their guard down. Why not study Robilar's Gambit, the famous fighting technique of Lord Robilar? It would combine perfectly with the skills you already have." These are the sorts of suggestions that would seem unreasonable coming from a stranger or a boss you barely know - but from a mentor, cherished friend, and boon companion, such advice might carry a lot of weight. Thus, the importance of roleplaying and possibly the need for a Diplomacy check.


If you're that worried about them doing that with a cohort, what on earth do you do about their 2 level higher, full wealth and XP progression PC? :smallconfused:

Umm, talk to the player about your expectations for the game, and give them guidance if the character they make is too strong or weak for the group? You know, DM stuff.

[Garwain]

The player may run cohorts and followers during gameplay as a convenience, but they remain NPCs. You retain veto power and can always state "your cohort wouldn't do that". If the player runs these NPC cohorts in a way that is blatantly inconsistent with their natures, you retain the right to take over the NPCs and run them directly.

^This^

The followers are NPCs who voluntarely follow the leader. As NPCs the GM is in full control and the player may only suggest them some tasks.

[Coidzor]

I was thinking of more modest examples. For example, a PC wizard with a wizard cohort might say "Let's study different spells in our spare time. I'll share what I learn with you, and you can do the same for me. We'll both learn more spells that way."

You'd have the cohort study the exact same spells as the PC despite them knowing that they'd be learning those spells from the PC anyway? :smallconfused:


Alternately, a character might say to his fighter cohort, "Your reflexes in combat are really amazing - you can really hit anyone who lets their guard down. Why not study Robilar's Gambit, the famous fighting technique of Lord Robilar? It would combine perfectly with the skills you already have."

While it's not classes as in-game constructs, that's still a pretty bad breach of the 4th wall.... :smallconfused:


hese are the sorts of suggestions that would seem unreasonable coming from a stranger or a boss you barely know - but from a mentor, cherished friend, and boon companion, such advice might carry a lot of weight. Thus, the importance of roleplaying and possibly the need for a Diplomacy check.

An equitable exchange of knowledge is unreasonable? :smallconfused:


Umm, talk to the player about your expectations for the game, and give them guidance if the character they make is too strong or weak for the group? You know, DM stuff.

So... Trust and asking someone to adhere to the gentleman's agreement.

[ILM]

If you permit the feat, I'd recommend the following:


You build the cohort and all followers. The player may sketch out for you, in broad terms, what he's looking for, but you build the actual characters and assign ability scores, pick feats and spells, allocate skill points, etc.
You continue to make all decisions when leveling the cohort. A player who roleplays well and makes successful Diplomacy checks may be able to influence the cohort's decisions about how to advance, but decision-making authority remains with you.
The player may run cohorts and followers during gameplay as a convenience, but they remain NPCs. You retain veto power and can always state "your cohort wouldn't do that". If the player runs these NPC cohorts in a way that is blatantly inconsistent with their natures, you retain the right to take over the NPCs and run them directly.

Pretty much this. If you're worried about Leadership, keep the cohorts as NPCs under your full control. Decide if/when they accompany the PCs. I don't think I'd do the Diplomacy thing, I'd just try to figure out what the player wishes and see if I'm willing to go that way, but whatever floats your boat.


If you're that worried about them doing that with a cohort, what on earth do you do about their 2 level higher, full wealth and XP progression PC? :smallconfused:
You do what you have to do - you just avoid having to do it twice. And you avoid their building a cohort catering strictly to their weaknesses. (Oh look, an craftificer stacking all the cost reducers in 3.5! Here's what your WBL guidelines sound like now: *snap*)

[DemonRoach]

Honestly, if your not comfortable with it, don't allow it. And bear in mind that once one player takes it, likely will the rest.

[DiBastet]

You build the cohort and all followers. The player may sketch out for you, in broad terms, what he's looking for, but you build the actual characters and assign ability scores, pick feats and spells, allocate skill points, etc.
You continue to make all decisions when leveling the cohort. A player who roleplays well and makes successful Diplomacy checks may be able to influence the cohort's decisions about how to advance, but decision-making authority remains with you.
The player may run cohorts and followers during gameplay as a convenience, but they remain NPCs. You retain veto power and can always state "your cohort wouldn't do that". If the player runs these NPC cohorts in a way that is blatantly inconsistent with their natures, you retain the right to take over the NPCs and run them directly.


That'sa it. You create the NPC, level it and etc. You roleplay it and choose its decisions, but in combat the player may run the character sheet.

This turns leadership, from a game perspective, more the chance of running a second, different character, with the challenge to adapting yourself to the character, than "having a second pc".

In my experience players enjoy this version much more than having a second pc.

[Fenryr]

Thanks for all the ideas.

I will talk to him and tell him 'm not comfortable. If he insists, I will make the NPC. Perhaps I will write a table for random roll for a random NPC (he could be Fighter, Wizard, whatever). I will build the NPC to make it useful but not too much.

Thanks again. Any new idea is very accepted.

[imneuromancer]

I've always liked the idea of doubling the number of followers, but getting rid of the cohort. This would get rid of the ability to abuse the cohort, but would give you LOTS of out-of-combat power. Which, to my mind, was the point of the feat-- to replicate the 1st edition ability for fighters and such to gain followers and develop a stronghold.

[JoeYounger]

Thanks for all the ideas.

I will talk to him and tell him 'm not comfortable. If he insists, I will make the NPC. Perhaps I will write a table for random roll for a random NPC (he could be Fighter, Wizard, whatever). I will build the NPC to make it useful but not too much.

Thanks again. Any new idea is very accepted.

Wait, hold on! I have input too!

Talk to him and tell him you're not comfortable. And ASK HIM FOR HELP.

I'd suggest allowing it completely. Tell him not to be a **** by abusing it, but that he has free reign with it. Let him build whatever he wants, but be clear with him that this is a trial experience. That if he builds something more powerful than the other PCs, or even if its just taking too much time away from the other PCs that you're going to make him retrain the feat next level.

There is no reason for you to gimp leadership. It's only broken if they player is being a douche, and if you ask him not to be, he prolly wont.

Let him build the cohort, let him play it. Let him roleplay with it, and make all of the decisions he wants. As the DM you're telling a story for the players. If they want leadership then let them take it. Let them build a cohort to cover all of their weaknesses. As a DM you should be there to moderate the party. Give it to him for a session and watch how it works. If its outshining the rest of the party, or if it is taking too much time away from the rest of the party, then you should talk to the player again and explain your concern. At that point tell him you can either take over and play it as an NPC that he can roleplay his way into good friendship with or he can retrain out of the leadership feat and pick something new.

Moral of the story, if youre playing DND with this kid, hes prolly your friend IRL, talk to him and find a way to make it work that is fun for everyone. Don't take his fun away because you've read that it can be abused on the forums full of people who like to abuse the rules :P

[DiBastet]

Perhaps I will write a table for random roll for a random NPC (he could be Fighter, Wizard, whatever).

If you ever need, I got a got random table with lots of possibilities.

[Fenryr]

If you ever need, I got a got random table with lots of possibilities.

Would you mind to share? Thanks.

[ericgrau]

It is a superb role-playing tool and I heartily recommend it. The only worry is if players get jealous that another player is controlling 2 people. Personally I wouldn't care. Back in 2e everyone basically got leadership automatically. If a player is only using it to gain an advantage with some combo trick like Marshall then ok don't let it slide.

IMO the random NPC is a good idea, or perhaps an NPC the PCs met while adventuring, but perhaps give a few options in case the PC needs the NPC for a particular purpose like running his organization.

[JoeYounger]

Perhaps I will write a table for random roll for a random NPC (he could be Fighter, Wizard, whatever). I will build the NPC to make it useful but not too much.

Just so you know, this would ruin my fun with the feat. You're the DM, not a baby sitter. The rules say he get some control over what class, alignment, and race the cohort is.

Talk to your player, don't come here trying to solve all of your problems with a feat that you've never seen played before.

Just so you know, I was in this situation last session, where I wanted to take leadership, to get a cohort to help the party out because we don't have a healer, and we could also use a crafter. My DM tried to do the same thing, and it honestly took -ALL- the fun out of me taking the feat. It also disrupted the session for about an hour, because the rest of the group was upset too. No one in the group understood why the DM was changing the way the feat worked when no one wanted him to. It got to the point where I just said screw it, I don't want the feat because the DM wouldn't let me have any control over it. If you're going to make it an NPC, you're going to control it, you're going to build it, and you're going to equipt it, then why is he paying a feat for it? What you guys are describing, are hirelings. They are the NPCs that you pay x silver for a day, and dont get to control. Don't make him waste a feat for something that he can literally get for 9gp per day. That is crummy DMing. Its not your job to make sure everything is balanced going into the session. Your job is to fix it if it isnt. Don't nerf something when there hasnt be any problems.




EDIT: I kinda sound like I'm coming off as an ******** here. I'm not trying to. I just want to stress that the suggestions that have been made here, would ruin my fun with the feat, and I'd be surprised if they didnt ruin your players fun too. You're nerfing the feat when you've not seen if it is going to cause problems yet, and I hate that. For you, for your players, for the game itself.

[nedz]

I've had characters with Leadership, and I run a game where one of the player's does too. The only question of relevance for the DM really is: Do I want a larger party ?
I'm quite comfortable with large groups of characters, it does slow the game down a little but then the players have more options - especially if one of their characters is down and they'd have nothing to do otherwise.
YMMV of course.

[Coidzor]

That reminds me, one of my friends in an earlier campaign had ended up with the entire party having leadership through one means or another, and the DM, in order to try to bring up player immersion had it so that each player ended up playing another player's cohort.

[MukkTB]

Just from the standpoint of immersion I feel that the DM should create and run the cohort and any other NPCs. It forces the player to interact with the cohort through their character. Obviously the character should get a choice of what kind of cohort they get even down to the feat level, and if the PC has a good relationship with the cohort they should be able to influence further character development decisions.

[jaybird]

That runs into the opposite problem, spending a feat and getting nothing out of it beyond some fluffy background for roleplaying. And if that's the case, the DM can just give that without taking a feat away from the player.


Not necessarily. Taking it in this fashion with, say, a bunch of smiths, weavers, and various other crafters as your basic minions, with your cohort being a crafty wizard or an artificer, lets you basically spend a feat to bypass downtime for item crafting. My wife did this in our Shackled City campaign and reoccupied the dwarven fortress, then started making her minions churn out weaponry to be enchanted or sold.

Yeah, this. I'm planning on putting Alchemist and Artificer into my highest level cohort slots, and putting in a bunch of Experts as well (DM says 1st levels will be NPC classes, 2nd+ levels are PC classes).

[ericgrau]

And experts aren't all that bad at level 1 even if you are allowed 1st level PC classes. You might sometimes be able to match them with PC classes at skills, but if they're both equal then the expert makes for better fluff than trying to explain why your craftsman has trapfinding.

[chadmeister]

Having extra characters tag along with the party, and played by whichever player volunteers just seems like such a common occurrence in our that having a player explicitly get one with a feat doesn't seem lie a big deal. The followers seemed more interesting to me from a player's perspective. But most of the time, they won't provide much benefit.

[Keneth]

The way we use leadership is -- you can't take any followers with you into battle (except when waging war) and the cohort is whatever the DM chooses (generally random, you don't want to sabotage the player intentionally). This will still increase the player's power quite a bit but it doesn't break the game by giving the player two characters fully under their control.

[ericgrau]

My DM tried to do the same thing, and it honestly took -ALL- the fun out of me taking the feat. It also disrupted the session for about an hour, because the rest of the group was upset too. No one in the group understood why the DM was changing the way the feat worked when no one wanted him to.
This is why over-response to "brokenness" can be worse than the problem itself.

If it's too much trouble for the DM to give the PC several options instead of screwing him over with an entirely random NPC, then let the PC make it but without choosing any abilities that are excessively specific to the party. Building a healer because no one wants to play one is ok. A cohort with an ability that optimizes a single uncommon special ability that the leader PC has is not ok.

[Donox]

I find that leadership is great when used passively. For example, in a campaign that I'm in, I have a buff orientated/utility sublime chord who mostly uses glitterdust and haste, as well as a plethora of social options (read. heavy bluff/diplomacy optimization). His cohort is a melee orientated Mo9 that isn't really super fun to roleplay/use out of combat. In short, each of the characters is one half of a concept, and its the concept that I enjoy playing.

[Coidzor]

I find that leadership is great when used passively. For example, in a campaign that I'm in, I have a buff orientated/utility sublime chord who mostly uses glitterdust and haste, as well as a plethora of social options (read. heavy bluff/diplomacy optimization). His cohort is a melee orientated Mo9 that isn't really super fun to roleplay/use out of combat. In short, each of the characters is one half of a concept, and its the concept that I enjoy playing.

Sounds like you need to look into Gestalt then. :smallwink:

[jiriku]

I'd recommend against a random class generator for the cohort. The rules allow the player to specify race, gender, and class. In that past I've even allowed (and encouraged) players to use leadership to acquire the permanent services of a known, established NPC they take a liking to. However, there's a big difference between "I'd like a human male artificer who's really good at crafting magic items, please" and "here's my artificer cohort, I built him to complement my character perfectly, using the heaviest optimization tech known to mankind".


You'd have the cohort study the exact same spells as the PC despite them knowing that they'd be learning those spells from the PC anyway? :smallconfused:
While it's not classes as in-game constructs, that's still a pretty bad breach of the 4th wall.... :smallconfused:
An equitable exchange of knowledge is unreasonable? :smallconfused:
So... Trust and asking someone to adhere to the gentleman's agreement.

You seem to be working pretty hard to twist my advice into some kind of unreasonable or ridiculous statement, and I'm not really sure why. I'd suggest reinterpreting my post with the assumption it was written by an experienced DM giving advice in good faith on how to use the feat in a way that seeks a harmonious and stable gaming experience.

[gomanfox]

Thanks for all the ideas.

I will talk to him and tell him 'm not comfortable. If he insists, I will make the NPC. Perhaps I will write a table for random roll for a random NPC (he could be Fighter, Wizard, whatever). I will build the NPC to make it useful but not too much.

Thanks again. Any new idea is very accepted.

A random NPC would most likely be a bad idea, not only because it is against the player's expectations of Leadership, but also because it changes how Leadership is meant to function. The idea is that the PC is looking for a specific type of person to have as their cohort (thus why the player is allowed to choose a race, class and alignment) despite it still basically being an NPC.

You can rule that it might take longer for the PC to find that specific character, especially if it's an uncommon character type, and maybe suggest other potential cohorts if the PC dosen't want to wait ("You haven't found a Cleric of Pelor that is interested in following you in this town, but there is a Druid that is focused on healing"), but I don't think it's a good idea to be like "Sorry, you can't get that neutral good Elf Wizard you were looking for, have this chaotic evil Gnome Monk instead."

I would suggest, if you allow the PC to take Leadership, to have them describe to you what they are looking for (general description) and then you can build it for them (choosing skills, feats, etc.). If they don't like that NPC and want to make adjustments to it, tell them it would take some amount of in-game time to look for another (weeks or months, whatever would be appropriate to your timeline). As nice as it would be to take Leadership and BAM, have a cohort immediately, the feat says that the character will be able to attract a cohort, not get one right then. Chances are, unless the group knows an NPC already that fits the description, it's unlikely they'd find a cohort right away unless they were in a big city or other appropriate location.

[jiriku]

Chances are, unless the group knows an NPC already that fits the description, it's unlikely they'd find a cohort right away unless they were in a big city or other appropriate location.

And if your campaign is big on consistency, this is especially true if the character is looking for a race-class-gender combination that's extremely unusual or exotic for his current location.

[nedz]

I would normally enforce local cultural norms on race/class etc. but then let the player generate and run the cohort. The last thing a DM needs, IMHO, is more workload. I would step in if the player had the cohort do something that was against its nature, but by having the player take ownership this problem never really occurs.
It will be two levels lower than the party so it is less powerful, and I give them half XP plus the 2 levels lower cap.

[MukkTB]

One thing that seemed decent is not generating random NPCs out of the woodwork for leadership. So the NPCs in the area already that have good standings with the PC are the possible cohorts. Of course in a city...

[Dazed&Confused]

I haven't decided what I think about Leadership yet. It opens awesome ways of roleplaying, but it can also be broken.

For example, I recently made a Ruathar with Leadership. He's also an Initiate of Mystra, and as the cohort I chose an elf wizard/incantatrix who comes from the very elvish city I helped before becoming a Ruathar. It completely changed the way my character would act if he didn't have the feat and it's really fun to see how they interact. It's also broken though, since incantatrixes have too much helpful abilities - applying persistent spell on all my buffs at no cost is lame. So my DM still allowed the cohort, but with 28 ability points instead of my 34, plus only 75% of hp instead of my full, and a limitation of two levels in that PrC. That way, he still makes the feat very useful, but doesn't make it broken. I also helped him by choosing only core spells except for some long-lasting buffs from Complete Arcane.

Try to do the same thing. Talk to your player, tell him to show the cohort's sheet(let him make it, allow him to have that fun) so you can analyze its impact on both RP and combats. If it's OP, tell him the changes you want him to make.

[nedz]

To reduce the risk of brokeness consider only allowing lower tier characters as cohorts. So: No your Wizard can't have another Wizard as a hench, but you could have a MageWright. Allowing a Fighter a Wizard cohort is another matter though, this should probably be fine.

The cohort should be a support character really - so only allowing passive classes/builds is another option. Basically tone down the OP level for the cohort.

To avoid wasting too much time on spell prep you could also not allow one player to run two Prepared casters.

[Coidzor]

One thing that seemed decent is not generating random NPCs out of the woodwork for leadership. So the NPCs in the area already that have good standings with the PC are the possible cohorts. Of course in a city...

That can get as bad as or worse than randomly generating a useless one unless there's already been an NPC introduced as cohort bait by the DM. :smallyuk:


You seem to be working pretty hard to twist my advice into some kind of unreasonable or ridiculous statement, and I'm not really sure why. I'd suggest reinterpreting my post with the assumption it was written by an experienced DM giving advice in good faith on how to use the feat in a way that seeks a harmonious and stable gaming experience.

You presented these as things that you'd make the player have to work against you in order to pass by actually having to roll diplomacy. If those weren't good examples of what you'd force a diplomacy roll for, I'm all ears. Well, eyes.

I would've expected a little more openness.

[Fenryr]

I'm lucky, it seems. My player wants a Bard without buffs (an archetype from PF) and wants the NPC to win some daily money based on Perform checks. He will leave the NPC out of combats and will use him for skills mostly.

Can't complain. Thanks again for all the posts.