Wizards summon "replacement fighters." Can fighters have "replacement wizards?"

[Segev]

One of - and only one of - the things that make many Tier 1s into Tier 1s is the fact that they have summoning and calling magic that let them conjure, create, or bind NPCs and monsters which basically do the same job as the party mundanes, sometimes better than said mundanes and always with better action economy (since the wizard, if needs be, could call up more than one of them).

A classic example is the high-level wizard (Greater) Planar Binding a Solar to his service. Then doing it again tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the Fighter is, at best, as good as one of the Solars at his primary job of beating things up with weapons.


Obviously, what I'm about to bring up is not the same thing. However, anybody (including the fighter) can pick up Leadership, and take as their cohort a wizard. Literally adding a wizard to whatever character it is.

With Leadership, too, he can add low-level followers that are casters or whatever else he needs. These are vulnerable to destruction, but they still exist.

Aside from the issue that a wizard can take Leadership to get a second wizard, or a cleric, or a druid, or whatever he wants, too, how far does the capability to take a feat to get "another class" working for your character go in terms of balance compared to the spell-ability to call up a member of (or stand-in for) another class to serve you?

Would any amount of class features designed to give X class a set of servants of Y class compare to Planar Binding and the like?

This is intended as a discussion thread; I feel like I'm missing something here, because it feels off to make the claim that a Fighter with a Wizard Cohort is doing similarly to the Wizard with the Planar Bound Warrior-Type-Outsider, and yet the similarities are noteworthy.

[Telonius]

The biggest theoretical limitation is the level: any Wizard obtained by Leadership is going to be two levels below the Fighter, therefore two levels below the wizard who's gating in Solars. A smaller (but still important) limitation is the total modifier to the Fighter's Leadership score. Charisma is usually a dump stat for Fighters. While you can recover from a negative charisma modifier by the Reputation table, it's a bit harder to do. The Wizard doesn't have to worry as much about charisma or reputation. When he's casting the spell, either he can do it or he can't.

The biggest practical limitation is DM approval. While the DM can say "no" to anything in the game, Leadership is a bit more explicitly under the DM's purview. The Fighter doesn't typically get to design his own cohort.

[Psyren]

Nitpick: Solars have 22 HD and so would be ineligible for GPB, you would need Gate or Shapechange.

The main problem with Leadership relative to the other methods is that cohorts are a lot less reliable than conjured backup, as follows:

1) For starters, there is the clause that says "A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment." which basically says it is DM's choice what you actually get, and even if you get the class you want it may not be built the way you want. Compare to PB/PA/Gate, where you more or less know what you're in for because there is little real variation from the monster's statblock.

2) The statblock itself is an advantage of the magical method - the DM has very little extra work to do with a monster, whereas with a cohort they're basically building a new character from scratch. This can be particularly off-putting at high levels. And they have to do this all over again if you want to change your cohort, if it dies etc. This greatly increases your chances of a "no."

3) Cohorts are harder to control. In Leadership they show up because they respect you, but this can change easily. particularly if you start racking up negative Leadership modifiers. A summoned or gated creature follows your every order, a Planar Bound creature will do whatever it agreed to ahead of time, and a Planar Ally will even look out for your best interests since you have the same boss.

[Segev]

Playing devil's advocate, here, the wizard doesn't get to design his Outsider minion, either. In fact, he is less likely to get to customize, because he's by default getting the standard entry out of the MM. I've played in more games where the DM tells the player to design his cohort simply because the DM doesn't want to be bothered, what with all the monsters and NPCs for which he's already responsible.

[HighWater]

All things considered, this is pretty much why Leadership is considered to be one of the potentially most Broken feats available if the DM is a bit generous.

A Fighter with leadership that has gotten himself magical cohorts will indeed shift up the Tier ranks as long as his cohorts remain alive and well. It will most likely still not be as good as a Wizard, but it will can now be very versatile and very powerful.

[Segev]

As a side thought, the wizard will benefit less from Leadership if only because of diminishing returns. Yes, two wizards' actions per round are better than one's, but the wizard is not gaining NEW capabilities. The fighter is. (This is, admittedly, an oversimplification, as a wizard could pick up a druid or a cleric or the like.)

[ddude987]

Playing devil's advocate, here, the wizard doesn't get to design his Outsider minion, either. In fact, he is less likely to get to customize, because he's by default getting the standard entry out of the MM. I've played in more games where the DM tells the player to design his cohort simply because the DM doesn't want to be bothered, what with all the monsters and NPCs for which he's already responsible.

While its true they only get to bind standard monsters, out of even just the core MM, there are enough options to get whatever job done the wizard needs. In the case of leadership, and the assumption you do not get to design your own cohort, you don't know what you're getting. With binding/summoning, you can select something that does exactly what you need, even if its from a limited scope.


As a side thought, the wizard will benefit less from Leadership if only because of diminishing returns. Yes, two wizards' actions per round are better than one's, but the wizard is not gaining NEW capabilities. The fighter is. (This is, admittedly, an oversimplification, as a wizard could pick up a druid or a cleric or the like.)

logic
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?285984-Commoners-are-tier-1
/logic

I don't mean to be rude, but I couldn't resist.

[emeraldstreak]

The big difference is wizards are not overshadowed by their fight-y minions.

Whereas the fighter is overshadowed by his spellcasting not-really-minions. That's true (if less so) for other similar cases, ie gold dragon mounts for paladins.

[Zubrowka74]

So let me get this straight : the wizard having broken capabilities from the get go is ok. But the fighter getting almost as good as the wizard is no no no, too OP?

That's pretty much why the tier disparities will never be resolved.

This right there could be a nice fix to the fighter : make Leadership a fighter only feat. Like the stronghold they got at 9th level in the older editions.

As pointed out though, you have to make an another sheet. It's more work.

[Segev]

Only semi-related, but I'm playing a Paladin in a game, and he does have the Leadership feat. I'm sorely tempted, if I can find a way to keep them from being crushed by the CR 13+ encounters our ECL 12 party gets into, to have a small number of his 1st-3rd level followers be casters with buff spells and convenience spells to buff my Paladin and the other party fighters, freeing our primary casters to do things best done by high-CL individuals rather than worrying about low-level buff spells and action economy.

[emeraldstreak]

Srsly, gold dragon mounts are Core and are so much cooler than random spellcasting minions.

[ddude987]

So let me get this straight : the wizard having broken capabilities from the get go is ok. But the fighter getting almost as good as the wizard is no no no, too OP?


I would say the bigger problem is players controlling multiple characters bogs down the game, at least in my experience. If mr fighter wanted a wizard so badly he shoullda played a wizard instead of playing 2 characters.

[Zubrowka74]

I would say the bigger problem is players controlling multiple characters bogs down the game, at least in my experience. If mr fighter wanted a wizard so badly he shoullda played a wizard instead of playing 2 characters.

But the Solar gating wizard is in the exact same position, perhaps even moreso because he'll be higher level than the cohort. Same with a druid and his companion. It gets even worse with a minionmancer.

[Psyren]

Playing devil's advocate, here, the wizard doesn't get to design his Outsider minion, either. In fact, he is less likely to get to customize, because he's by default getting the standard entry out of the MM. I've played in more games where the DM tells the player to design his cohort simply because the DM doesn't want to be bothered, what with all the monsters and NPCs for which he's already responsible.

The rules require the DM to build and control the cohort, and the fact that some DMs let the player do this doesn't actually matter. More frequently this works out against the player since the DM has veto power over any ability the player tries to include, thanks to the attract clause, so even with a more hands off approach the DM can strip away a key ability or class feature.

The fact that monsters are more static is actually a boon for the player - it means you know exactly what you will get. If you bind a Leonal for its Holy Word roar, you don't have to worry whether the one you get knows it or not, etc.

[SinsI]

Djinni Ring or Magic Lamp are supposed to be the fighter's "replacement wizard", but they are gimped due to their limited number of uses.

[Segev]

"I want to attract a wizard who specializes in buffing meleeists" is hardly asking for something the DM should be disapproving.

Moreover, the DM has outright disapproval rights to just about anything that goes into any build of any character, PC or N, which comes into his game.


The point about more characters under a player's control means a more bogged down game is a very good one. It's a painful one for me, as the character I most want to play (and have yet to be able to do so in a game that lasts long enough to even get to minionmancy) is a necromancer minionmancer. But if it gets to that point, hordes of undead are gonna be slow.

That's probably a topic for a different thread, though.


For this one...sure, the fighter "should" have played a wizard, but perhaps he wanted to be a fighter and just wants a list of buff spells cast on him daily. He could ask the party wizard, or he could have a cohort who's his dedicated spell caddy. The play style between "wizard" and "fighter with a wizard cohort" is going to be different. (Less sure about "wizard and his bound Solar," though.)

[squiggit]

So let me get this straight : the wizard having broken capabilities from the get go is ok. But the fighter getting almost as good as the wizard is no no no, too OP?
Huh? No one said that.


Moreover, the DM has outright disapproval rights to just about anything that goes into any build of any character, PC or N, which comes into his game.
Yes, but there's a difference between a DM saying "Fireball is banned this game" and a feat saying "The dm can pick whatever he wants to happen". A DM can houserule whatever he wants, sure, but the latter isn't even that.