Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Duvanok 06-08-04, 12:54 AM	I run a group with a Monk character who is wanting to take the leadership feat. The problem is I am adamant in my belief of one player, one character. This feat seems to allow the player to control a second (though a bit less powerful) character. This seems like quite a powerful feat! Specifically, the player wants a halfling wizard. The player is a big-time power gamer and I am afraid the little wizard would be nothing more than a walking ring of spell storing, memorizing nothing but Cat's Grace, Owl's Wisdom and protection-type spells to cast on the Monk whenever he wants it. My instincts say no. However I don't just want to assume the player is going to misuse the cohort. Nor do I want to just forbid the feat having never given it a chance. So I was wondering what kind of experiences other DMs have had with the Leadership feat.
Twisted Puppy 06-08-04, 01:19 AM	The DMG states very specifically that the DM has the option to disallow this feat. The feat can easily be abused by a player in question. If you are not comfortable with the idea, I say go with your instincts and disallow the feat - for now. Tell him that if, at some later point, you feel comfortable with it, you may allow it in the game. If you do that, I suggest you do so when all of your party is gaining a feat, so no one will feel slighted. I recently had an argument with a (very good) friend of mine. He told me that Monte Cook has said you can take Leadership twice, and I told him that whether MC says it is okay or not, I wouldn't allow it. He said I couldn't arbitrarily make that decision. My reply: "Watch me."
Wayne 06-08-04, 01:57 AM	He told me that Monte Cook has said you can take Leadership twice, and I told him that whether MC says it is okay or not, I wouldn't allow it. He said I couldn't arbitrarily make that decision. Wow. :twitch: Sounds like the player thinks it isn't the DM's job to houserule away feats and abilities that are imbalancing and might damage the game. Heh. Especially since the Leadership text specifically has the line "You're free to disallow this feat if it would disrupt the campaign" (Page 106). Anyway, I'm not sure about being able to take Leadership more than once-- there's nothing in the text of the feat prohibiting it-- but you're only allowed to have one cohort. The table states you may attract "a cohort," in the singular; the feat's text uses "the cohort." Of course, that is stretching, and it might be better to simply rule that the feat can't be taken twice-- having two cohorts is extremely powerful, but having literally hundreds of followers is pretty problematic as well. I've allowed the feat for the two smaller groups I had in my past, with little problems-- a PC Sorcerer took an Ogre-Mage Samurai cohort, who was powerful, but not outrageous; a different PC Gladiator (CN) took a Succubus as his cheerleader and "training partner" (*cough*), but as she was [correctly] handled as a cowardly, self-serving psycho I don't think it ever got out of hand (at least not in the balance sense...). But then I have pretty decent players. I've had to disallow Leadership outright for my last two games, since we had too many PCs (eight) as it was and adding in cohorts would've been far more trouble than it'd have been worth. So I'm afraid I probably can't offer much primary-source advice... though I'd caution you against taking Leadership, since it basically works just like you think it does-- it gives a player another PC under his control, and if someone's a "powergamer" to begin with it's begging to be abused.
Sparks The untouchable 06-08-04, 02:49 AM	Leadership is just asking to be abused. The followers shouldn't be too much of a problem -- a couple of fireballs should take care of them. The cumulative negatives from that will ensure they never become a problem again. As for the cohort, don't forget that it is an NPC too. Yes, the player does control the cohort, although the DM can as well, however you have to look and treat the cohort as you would any other NPC. I.E. if your monk is just using him for his spells then he may begin to feel used. In which case he would probably be less willing to help his "friend" and may leave. Also, if the monk or the party mistreats their cohorts then they too will leave. Use the NPC attitude chart in the DMG, if their attitude drops below anything but total friendliness then they would leave. This would of course incur penalties to the PCs' leadership scores. After a while they will either wise up and treat their cohorts like the friends they are supposed to be or their leadership scores will be too low to attract anything at all. *There's is a feat somewhere in a non-WotC book (the "Book of Feats", I think) that allows a player to attract multiple cohorts. I've banned it good and proper in my group. I hate Mongoose; I swear they ought to change their name to The Munchkin Publishers.* :fight!:
deadite 06-08-04, 03:15 AM	I have listed several feats as free. Leadership is one of those feats, which does not take up any feat slot. You cant learn to be a true leader. I also allow leadership at any level, except level 1, but only grant it once. I see leadership as a roleplaying bonus. Once a player has shown that his character is capable of leading, he'll get the feat. The cohort and followers are npc's and will be played by me.
Eck 06-08-04, 12:24 PM	If you want, you could allow him to take the feat as a trial run. If at a later date you think it's unbalancing, you can tell him to change the feat. Be 100% UP FRONT that you reserve the right to take this feat away if you think it's out of whack. Maybe even have him sign a piece of paper stating that he understands this is a trial run and is subject to the feat being removed. A couple of things that can keep this feat in check. YOU make up the NPC instead of him. That way the NPC isn't min-maxed to work PERFECTLY with his character. YOU write out his personality. Leave it to him to role-play the NPC, but reserve the right to take over...No Carl, the wizard isn't going to hop around on every brick to try and "find" the trap. Make magic items that anyone could use and would be interested in, and give the NPC a voice/claim to those magic items. And he definitly receives an equal share of loot. (Or maybe half of the monk's share) :) - Eck
Kiva 06-08-04, 12:24 PM	I, too, subscribe to the "one player, one character" belief. So I've allowed my players to take Leadership, with the restriction that cohorts cannot participate in combat. They are free to use their cohorts for other things - gathering information, research, watching the homefront while the PC is off adventuring, etc. We haven't had any problems.
astute1 06-08-04, 02:04 PM	The first things to take into consideration are: 1. How many players do you already have? 2. How experienced is this player? If you have a lot of players, and the guy who wants a cohort isn't very skilled, you're just asking to bog down combat. I only allow Leadership in small parties (4 or less) and only then to players who I think can handle the bookkeeping for two characters. That said, I've found that Leadership isn't a terribly unbalanced feat. In 3.5 the cohort doesn't 'steal XP' from the rest of the party and typically gets the 'leftover' magic items. It also allows the players to fill out the party a bit ("hmmm, we don't have anyone who can cast identify.") Most of the time, people seem to make their cohorts into healing batteries, buffers, or bodyguards/mounts. The biggest problem is the time required for a second character to take an action. Also, as some people have mentioned, you write up and have some control over the cohort. He's allowed to screen for a specific race, class, and alignment, I believe, then you write up the rest. Write up a good background history, and a personality outline. My last campaign had two players with Leadership. The halfling bard had a halfling priestess of Olidammara, who was his lover, and the Priest of Heironius had a lesser priest who was his seneschal. I also played a character with Leadership in a different campaign, and my cohort was a priest bodyguard for me. In every case, we had detailed background histories for the cohort, and all the players really like having them. It was a good roleplaying experience. If you are worried about abuse, make the cohort more like a real character, and the player will be less inclined to abuse it.
krichaiushii 06-10-04, 09:58 PM	If you have the time, make up a few potential NPCs for the monk to interview and decide upon in game. Let the monk pick race and class (halfling wizard, by the sound of it), and the rest is up to you. The player is happy because he has a cohort, and you are happy because said cohort isn't maxed out to the PCs advantage. Besides, cohorts make for wonderful demonstrations of the oppositions' power, as well as bringing their own plot hooks into the game. Run with it.
Pongolyn 06-10-04, 10:21 PM	Cohorts casting second-level spells isn't such a big deal in the long run; by the time a player gets a cohort that can do this, it probably won't be game-breaking unless you or the player completely disregard the Leadership rules in the DMG. The biggest problem I've run into with cohorts/lackeys/allies is the time investment. It's tough enough keeping combat encounters moving quickly when one character is a summoner druid pumping out 1d4+1 elementals a round. Adding cohorts to the mix will probably not imbalance the game, but it will make combat LONGER as the person playing the cohort struggles to decide what he's going to do in addition to his regular PC actions. You have been warned. :teach:
Edymnion 06-10-04, 10:32 PM	Originally posted by Sparks The untouchable Leadership is just asking to be abused. The followers shouldn't be too much of a problem -- a couple of fireballs should take care of them. The cumulative negatives from that will ensure they never become a problem again. Um, why would the followers be anywhere near combat? They're not cohorts, they are not going to fight for the PC. The most they'll do is go out of their way to help him. A life threatening situation, and the followers are going to ditch you and run for their lives. And the DM has full control over the cohort. If they try to use the cohort for something you don't like, you simply overrule them and say "No, the cohort does not do that." I haven't had any problems with Leadership. Of course, I keep a tight reign on it and don't let the players try to get away with something they shouldn't. As for "One Player, One Character", I don't follow that one, neither as a player nor as a DM. One Player can have multiple PCs, if they are a mature enough gamer to handle it. Immature gamers (and I don't mean age, or normal maturity, but how well they've developed as roleplayers and gamers) that can't keep the two characters seperate should only be allowed one character. Those that can handle it deserve to be able to play more if they want to, and there is room for the extra PCs. After all, you as the DM play dozens, perhaps even HUNDREDS of characters in a normal campaign. I find it a bit hypocritical to say that the DM gets to play as many characters as he wants, but the PCs can't because they're somehow not as good as the DM is.
SlayerOfWorlds 06-10-04, 11:11 PM	In a game ive been playing for months now, i play Human female Cleric. I took the leadership feat .....the Dm told me if it unbalances the game or i abuse it i will lose the cohort and followers and the feat will not be refunded, This gave me pause and made me rethink my original plans. Knowing abuse would cause me too loose the feat, this made me come up with a unique and rewarding idea. My cohort is a halfing female, an ex rogue now cleric in training. And i picked up two followers ( i could have had more, but choose only two) Both are halfing females.... of course. THese two followers see very little combat, one is my Torch bearer.... and the other carries all my scrolls and potions... passing the ones i need too me during combat. My cohort spends all the combat time simply protecting and healing my followers.... which is her job. While all three give me advantages in combat, they dont over balance combat in the groups favor. And since they are the only cohorts/followers in the party, the party isnt over balanced. Not to mention my characters has to foot the entire bill for all three halflings.... i pay for food, lodgings, equipement, and give them a reasonable salary depending on the amount of danger they go through each adventure. So as you can see.... The feat is only as over balancing as the player who uses it. A dm knows his players.... and should only allow the feat too those groups that would abuse it and would use it as it is entended to be used.
TheDarkLord 06-11-04, 04:21 AM	I ruled that if in Combat with the PC's the Cohorts/followers get part of the Leader's XP/Loot whenever in an encounter. That pretty much takes away most of the Abuse for actual Combat gaming ideas. But this lead to more creative thoughts from my players. As listed: [list=1] Aristocrat Expert (Blacksmith) Expert (Armorsmith) Wizard (Research purposes) Cleric (Hometown Healer) Adept (Tribal Healer) Warriors (Many, many, many hometown guards) [/list=1] I have no problems with most of them because they are mostly for RP purposes only. The one slight problem I did encounter (This was my fault because i wasn't totally prepared) was the 16th level sorcerer had a 14th level Aristocrat at his disposal... I know most of you can see the Implications there... We worked through it and all in all, the Leadership feat is probably one of the better RP feats available to characters. As stated before me, if you want this feat, its at no cost (though the Epic versions still cost you).
ck2001wendt 06-11-04, 05:41 AM	I´m pretty liberal in what I´ll allow in the game, so I don´t have problems with the leadership feat. One of my players has a cohort right now and actually wishes he didn´t, because it takes up a feat slot and gives you back a very fragile combatant. Some things to remember: -Cohorts only get 75% of the player´s XP, and they´ll always be two levels below the player. They are usually going to be fragile in combat. -Leadership balancs out as it takes from the player´s other feat choices. Moreover, it´s easy to "lose", a cohort´s death will badly hurt your leadership score, and therfore your next cohort. -Cohorts shouldn´t get a full share of the treasure. More likely a half share. -Followers should never be near combat. Unless your player has an extremely high leadership score, or there´s an RP reason for giving the player a small army, followers will be devoted servants, torchbearers and the like, but NOT extra combatants. Basically, a bunch of Commoners, Warriors and Experts, who would die instantly in any CR 6+ combat. -Cohorts are, as noted, buffers, healers, mounts, artisans (stay home making magic items and minding the followers while the leader´s off adventuring!) and bodyguards. All of these roles can be beneficial for more than the leader in question. -It´s all about the player´s maturity, first and foremost. A player who can´t handle one PC in combat can´t handle 2, and they probably know it. Furthermore, mature players will build cohorts that do more than stand around and wait to heal their leaders.
MrkGrismer 06-11-04, 10:10 AM	It is my understanding that the Leadership feat is meant to replace the automatic attraction of followers that each class had in first edition, but no longer has. Pretty much these followers usually just garrison the PCs stronghold. But either way I never considered the cohort as being anything other then an NPC. I might let the PC control it during combat, but it stays an NPC. But I also believe in the one-player one-character guide. Unless there are less then 4-players. Everytime I have seen players with multiple characters they are not played as separate characters (although I, of course, play them separate to the point of arguing with each other and such. To the amusement of the other players).
detectevil 06-11-04, 10:25 AM	If you don't want a player to have a cohort you can, and should, simply say no. Or, the feat might still exist, the cohort would just not follow the player arround. He could be more like an ally, or a helper. Or you have the option to create the player's cohort if that makes you feel more confortable. Having an NPC as a cohort usually is more fun to the DM.
M_Humph 06-11-04, 10:33 AM	[i]*There's is a feat somewhere in a non-WotC book (the "Book of Feats", I think) that allows a player to attract multiple cohorts. I've banned it good and proper in my group. I hate Mongoose; I swear they ought to change their name to The Munchkin Publishers.* :fight!: [/B] One thing to note, if it is in the Book of Feats, it is possible a non mongoose feat. They used a lot of other companies early attempts at feats in there and not all are balanced. Just disallow the ones you do not like.
Mercurius 06-11-04, 10:54 AM	I tend to hold pretty close to the one-player-one-PC idea, simply because running a character long term is difficult and my players most of the time barely pay enough attention to accomplish that. I did have one character in my last campaign (half elven bard) take the leadership feat. She wanted a cleric, preferably of her god, but the way I ruled it (and the way I thought it was supposed to work, actually), I designed the cohort and ran it as an additional NPC who acted in the best interests of the PC so long as they didn't get the cohort killed. The cohort wound up being of a different god, but the player liked it and didn't mind the difference, so they got along fine. I controlled the cohort, but she acted as a healer, buffer, bodyguard, and combatant on her own. My advice would be to run the cohorts yourself as independant but loyal agents. At least do the character building yourself. It keeps the people who would abuse the feat from doing so, though it does make the DM's job harder.
astute1 06-11-04, 11:39 AM	Originally posted by ck2001wendt -Cohorts only get 75% of the player´s XP, and they´ll always be two levels below the player. They are usually going to be fragile in combat. While the rest of your post raises some very good points, the quoted line is, in fact, completely untrue. A cohort earnsxp as follows: cohort's xp = leader's xp * (cohort's level/leader's level) thus, a 15th level character, with a 12th level cohort, the cohort will earn 12/15 of the leader's XP, or 80%. A 9th level character with a 6th level cohort, the cohort will earn 66% of the leader's XP. This ratio maintains the cohort's xp relative to the leader's. There's no line anywhere in the DMG about the cohort being two levels below the player. The cohort may be of any level lower than the player, and may not be of equal or higher level than the character, even if the character's leadership score entitles him to a higher level follower. As far as being fragile in combat, picture a 10th level sorcerer, with a 9th level barbarian as a bodyguard cohort. Which do you think is more fragile? What about a paladin with a celestial dire rhino as his cohort mount?
Sarta 06-11-04, 12:19 PM	Originally posted by astute1 There's no line anywhere in the DMG about the cohort being two levels below the player. The cohort may be of any level lower than the player, and may not be of equal or higher level than the character, even if the character's leadership score entitles him to a higher level follower. Page 106 of the 3.5 DMG underneath the chart on the right hand side of the page in the section starting with Cohort Level says differently. This is a change from 3.0 where they could be only one level below the pc they followed. Personally, I don't like the feat for combat related npc's. We have used them to great ends though through using followers as information networks and staffs for businesses -- both organizations were run by the cohorts who managed these operations. They work well if a pc decides to become an inn keeper or some such. Sarta
devinmdp 06-11-04, 02:43 PM	I allow it. In fact, a priestess in the party I run had fallen in love with an NPC, and when she got the Leadership feat she asked if her lover could now adventure with her. That seemed great to me. Yes, she gets to run two characters. But basically only in combat. I still play the NPC in role playing situations. Devin
Twisted Puppy 06-11-04, 03:25 PM	I probably should clarify that my objection was taking the Leadership feat twice.
astute1 06-11-04, 04:39 PM	Originally posted by Sarta Page 106 of the 3.5 DMG underneath the chart on the right hand side of the page in the section starting with Cohort Level says differently. This is a change from 3.0 where they could be only one level below the pc they followed. I stand corrected. my bad.
Sarta 06-11-04, 05:22 PM	Originally posted by astute1 I stand corrected. my bad. Don't feel bad, I made the same mistake here on the boards and had it pointed out to me -- its the only reason I knew it was wrong. It has taken months to fully grasp all of the minute and seemingly inconsequential changes from 3.0 to 3.5. This is one of the stealth changes that is so easy to overlook. Sarta
Duvanok 06-11-04, 07:45 PM	Originally posted by Edymnion After all, you as the DM play dozens, perhaps even HUNDREDS of characters in a normal campaign. I find it a bit hypocritical to say that the DM gets to play as many characters as he wants, but the PCs can't because they're somehow not as good as the DM is. The idea is not that the player can't handle it or that he is not as "good" as the DM. There is nothing wrong with multiple pcs if that's what you like. But in my experiences one of the player's two characters he is running usually ends up being a favorite, and that's where the problems start. Hence, my reason for starting this thread in the first place. For what is a cohort but a less powerful second character who supports the player's "real" character and helps him advance. Personally, I like the idea of the player being invested in the game through one character. If the character is an Elven Paladin, then the player takes on the role of an elven paladin and interracts with the game world through that role. I find it hard to imagine what it would be like to Roleplay two characters at the same time. Though I imagine such campaigns that allow multiple characters per player are probably not that heavy on the RP anyway. It seems like nothing more than a way to get more pieces on the board. I play as well as DM and I would definitely not want to take on another character. To me it would make my characters seem too impersonal, nothing more than a set of number. Guy #1 is good at A B and C, and Guy #2 is good at X Y and Z. I use which ever one best fits the appropriatness of the situation. Boring.