I'm in a campaign at the moment (3.5) and I'm at 10th level. I have the leadership feat, but some problems have arisen because of it.
My first cohort was a ranger (I received him at level 4). He died due to an enemy wizard. I wasn't happy, but the most powerful member of the party took his gear, threatened me, and sold it for party share (We all got some)
My second cohort was a bard (I received her at 6). I fired her because essentially she did what I did, making her useless.
My third cohort (Whom was 7th Level when I received him) was a wizard. He was doing alright, but then we got ambushed by scrags, and he was dealt 48 damage in a single round (the surprise round, nonetheless). He had 25 Hit Points...
The main problem is the party loot thing. My DM seems to believe that giving my cohorts standard gear is unbalanced (I agree its a little strong) What I don't agree with, is them starting off with basic, non masterwork gear, and being 8th level. This, in my eyes, limits me to arcane casters, as if I buy gear for a cohort, the big guy threatens me and takes it anyway. And if I only get arcane casters, then they die in one or two hits.
Another problem is statistics. I recently was told my next cohort (I ordered a cleric) had a wisdom of 14 (Although two stat bumps puts it to 16). This seems lame to me, as having to put all her attribute points into her primary and then still not being able to cast 8th and 9th level spells immediately is awfully ludicrous.
A final thing, I feel that after two deaths of cohorts, my Leadership score should probably be affected, but upon reading it, I haven't directly caused the death of them.
Need replies, next session is on Friday.
I suggest asking your DM to retrain Leadership for another feat.
Getting to your money question - The Magic Item Compendium has a chart for PC wealth vs. NPC wealth per level (I can't remember if the DMG has it as well) but for a cohort, I will be making them use the NPC chart for next campaign (The PC one hasn't had many problems yet, but potential ones, definitely).
point being, leadership isn't for every game, and it isn't for every player, party, and certainly not for every dm. most adventures don't support them.
i made a fighter/expert/warmaster (sword and fist 3.0) once, picking leadership with only followers that were a rogue (main cohort),a precious few fighters, filled out with warriors, and experts. my warmaster had no magic items but my fighters and rogue carried several for me. they soon became a resource dump as per the other players specialized in other classes that didn't benefit from most magic items and gave merit to other social skills. they also got hand me down from the party. it worked in a funny way because nothing got thrown away or sold and soon had a nostalgic quality to them. "hey is noric still holding that +1 shortsword from the first dungeon?!"
the rest of the party was a paladin, a cleric, and a bard. buffing classes like the bard and cleric came in handy turning what would have been trekie like red shirts to somthing more potent, and soon leading the "army" became the theme. when we lost a warrior it became a big deal and a roleplay oppertunity. once we got to level 20 the prestige class itself lended to retire and we as a collective group filled out the followers and picked out next adventure party from it.
granted thats an optimal story with leadership, and i cringe for the dm when its abused. lol
) and a Large War Troll (Which, alone, is CR 12)on the other hand, i can't help but feel you nerfed yourself in some way especially if the dm chose not to compensate you for your bold move in favor of roleplay. but you have much respect from me for going that route.
my best advice would be for you to talk to your dm outside of the gaming table in depth on what you, and he are looking to get out of this feat. all in all by definition, with the exception of the book of exhalted... feats are benifitial perks or at the very least trade offs to otherwise improve a character through story and or a mechanical way. this is turning out to be a burden.
but talk with the dm anyway, once you both get on board the same page im sure you can find a solutuion. or you might be suprized to find out this is how hes getting his fun out of the feat. either way good luck
I did actually raise the second cohort, but then, as roleplaying (My character is the very caring kind) said for him to lead a simpler life: My life is a dangerous one (Our party is level 11,10 (Me),9,9,9,8,8,7. Two sessions ago, we fought 8 Trolls (Medium Sized ones
You have eight PCs in the party, why do you need a sidekick?
The DM shouldnt have let you take Leadership in the first place. Worst feat design ever. Thank god 4E doesnt have that crap.
Leadership is ok.
The problems just lie in how many players/DMs handle it. Too many only focus on the mechanics & treat it as another tool to try & "win" with.
But it's certainly possible to run great games involving this feat. All you need to do is remember to keep up the RP elements that help make any good game. Afterall, cohorts are more than just automated spell casting machines & additional attacks.
Leadership is ok.
The problems just lie in how many players/DMs handle it. Too many only focus on the mechanics & treat it as another tool to try & "win" with.
But it's certainly possible to run great games involving this feat. All you need to do is remember to keep up the RP elements that help make any good game. Afterall, cohorts are more than just automated spell casting machines & additional attacks.
Its not ok when this single feat causes your character to continuously hog the spotlight. Your controlling your character plus cohorts, and that IS a problem. It sucked every time in every game someone took the feat, no question. It wasnt even taken by this player to "win" with, its just that it always ended up being a pain in the ass.
Its not ok when this single feat causes your character to continuously hog the spotlight. Your controlling your character plus cohorts, and that IS a problem. It sucked every time in every game someone took the feat, no question. It wasnt even taken by this player to "win" with, its just that it always ended up being a pain in the ass.
Again, this isn't a Feat Design Flaw: it's a DM & Player mindset flaw.
Your group apparently doesn't like it. That doesnt' mean it will never work for anyone ever.
if I buy gear for a cohort, the big guy threatens me and takes it anyway.
I don't like the sound of a player who bullies items out of other players for starters and I'd speak with your DM/the player about getting that sorted.
Other than that I agree with most people here about trying to trade the feat in for something else. I had a character once who used it for RP purposes and only ever used the feat to have followers to shine his shoes etc. I came to an agreement with the DM and we allowed the feat to give me different circumstance bonuses to various skill checks which involved things like diplomacy checks to inspire militia men etc. But generally the feat does just aggrevate other players, and due to the level limit the cohort just tends to die, especially in high powered campaigns.
Where your actual problem is concerned, see if you can talk the DM into using the NPC wealth-by-level chart (which is indeed in both the DMG and the Magic Item Compendium). Also, stand up to the guy who keeps stealing your things: if he actually follows through on his threats, either bring in a new PC or leave the group.
As for a Cohort's gear... Well their stuff isn't your's. I'm sure the family of the cohort would like son's gear back. At the very least, his gear should be sold off to purchase and/or enhance the gear of your new cohort (if not out and out giving the new cohort the slain one's gear). Under no circumstance should the Cohorts gear be sold off to net the PCs money because it unbalances the game.
Also, you should have a talk with your DM about this big character intimidating you into doing what he wants (we call those table bullies and they need to be dealt with quickly before the behavior gets out of hand (unless you and the Dm are cool with it)).
Its not ok when this single feat causes your character to continuously hog the spotlight. Your controlling your character plus cohorts, and that IS a problem. It sucked every time in every game someone took the feat, no question. It wasnt even taken by this player to "win" with, its just that it always ended up being a pain in the ass.
I totally agree. Cohorts, Animal Companions and Familiars all need to be in the background, they are not the central focus on the party nor should they ever be used to hog the lime light. It's a difficult balancing act that few really succeed at.
I totally agree. Cohorts, Animal Companions and Familiars all need to be in the background, they are not the central focus on the party nor should they ever be used to hog the lime light. It's a difficult balancing act that few really succeed at.
Thats why its not just a DM/player issue, its also a feat design issue. If you want your character to have his own small private army, go play a different game.
Thats why its not just a DM/player issue, its also a feat design issue. If you want your character to have his own small private army, go play a different game.
The only thing I've ever seen Leadership used for was the cohort. Any followers usually hang out in the PC's house/lodge/castle/dojo/etc.
When it came time to play them my cohorts cohort was in charge of all the followers and we left them at the city my character had by some heroic action gained leadership of.
Thats why its not just a DM/player issue, its also a feat design issue. If you want your character to have his own small private army, go play a different game.
somthing said like that can only come from a really bad experience with the leadership feat. in any case i feel very sorry for your participation in that sort of game.
that being said. in the second version of dnd, if you played a fighter, at 9th level you were also handed a keep with lots and lots of people, which you were in charge of. preists got followers of the faith, rogues made thives guilds and wizards got thier own apprentices.
the concept of cohorts/followers and others isn't a fluke of 3.0-3.5 its been the standard since second edition and even as far back as chainmail. not about playing a different game but refining the one you have.
Hey everyone,
I'm in a campaign at the moment (3.5) and I'm at 10th level. I have the leadership feat, but some problems have arisen because of it.
My first cohort was a ranger (I received him at level 4). He died due to an enemy wizard. I wasn't happy, but the most powerful member of the party took his gear, threatened me, and sold it for party share (We all got some)
My second cohort was a bard (I received her at 6). I fired her because essentially she did what I did, making her useless.
My third cohort (Whom was 7th Level when I received him) was a wizard. He was doing alright, but then we got ambushed by scrags, and he was dealt 48 damage in a single round (the surprise round, nonetheless). He had 25 Hit Points...
The main problem is the party loot thing. My DM seems to believe that giving my cohorts standard gear is unbalanced (I agree its a little strong) What I don't agree with, is them starting off with basic, non masterwork gear, and being 8th level. This, in my eyes, limits me to arcane casters, as if I buy gear for a cohort, the big guy threatens me and takes it anyway. And if I only get arcane casters, then they die in one or two hits.
Another problem is statistics. I recently was told my next cohort (I ordered a cleric) had a wisdom of 14 (Although two stat bumps puts it to 16). This seems lame to me, as having to put all her attribute points into her primary and then still not being able to cast 8th and 9th level spells immediately is awfully ludicrous.
A final thing, I feel that after two deaths of cohorts, my Leadership score should probably be affected, but upon reading it, I haven't directly caused the death of them.
Need replies, next session is on Friday.
The creature's items should be* supplied by you, and/or the party. That is one of the disadvantages of leadership. That way the new cohort is not a walking treasure chest, and when they loot his body the party is only getting their own stuff back, taking your stuff if the big guy keeps threatening you.
Off-topic: Bards can cast spells. Big fighter types don't normally have good will saves. You could also make another caster. If he gets uppity have your backup take care of him. If you are role-playing your character to be afraid of the big guy ignore the partial advice. If he is being a pain just go ahead and pwn him.
*I said "should be" because that is how I do things, but I did not check to see if it was a rule.
Its not ok when this single feat causes your character to continuously hog the spotlight. Your controlling your character plus cohorts, and that IS a problem. It sucked every time in every game someone took the feat, no question. It wasnt even taken by this player to "win" with, its just that it always ended up being a pain in the ass.
The mastering of Leadership comes down to a single factor.
Where will they live?
I am in a campaign, playing as a Saint Paladin Hellborn. Given my Modifiers, when I reach level 6 and take Leadership, I will have 40 to 46 followers. Simply put, there is no practical use in a 6th level PC having 35 random 1st level NPCs follow him everywhere. Itd be a slaughter in any encounter.
The best way to manage the Leadership feat is to discuss with your DM Where they will be, and what they will do. In my example, the DM gave us a budget of 136,000 gp to spend on constructing a stronghold (Stronghold Builders Guide). Thus, working with the party, we agreed to make the stronghold a citadel to St. Cuthbert.
Now, Ive planned my character ahead, and lets just say with the addition of the Saint Template, (BoED) and the Extra Followers Feat (Heroes of Battle) I will have in the range of 220-260 followers.
Thus, when designing the Citadel I (with the partys consent) fashioned enough barracks to hold up to 100 troops. These followers, in addition to acting as the guards of the citadel, will also serve in being cooks, librarians, acolytes, and other staff.
The point is, I on my own leaisure can work with the DM to run these followers Out of Session, so that when we all sit down for a game, the followers are background and secondary to whats going on.
Plus, I just like knowing that if we are ever called to war, I can effectively field my own military unit.
Bobo
The main problem is the party loot thing. My DM seems to believe that giving my cohorts standard gear is unbalanced (I agree its a little strong) What I don't agree with, is them starting off with basic, non masterwork gear, and being 8th level. This, in my eyes, limits me to arcane casters, as if I buy gear for a cohort, the big guy threatens me and takes it anyway. And if I only get arcane casters, then they die in one or two hits.
Officially, are geared up as NPCs using the chart on pg127 of the DMG. That is, the amount of total wealth your PC has should not be affected by the presence or lack of a cohort. How exactly they get that gear is up to the DM and players, and most likely upgrades for your cohort's gear are best handled by dolling out additional treasure. But the bottom line is that their gear doesn't count against your own.
Yes, that does mean that there is "extra" gear floating around in the party and yes it is very strong. But that's also necessary. As you noticed, without proper gear, any creature will have a hard time dealing with level-appropriate challenges. Leadership is a very strong feat, and not one that should be allowed without forethought* (see below).
Another problem is statistics. I recently was told my next cohort (I ordered a cleric) had a wisdom of 14 (Although two stat bumps puts it to 16). This seems lame to me, as having to put all her attribute points into her primary and then still not being able to cast 8th and 9th level spells immediately is awfully ludicrous.
While the DM is free to choose the details of the cohort, he really should work with you to help create a cohort enhances the game for everyone.
*Its sounds to me that your DM did not think things through when he allowed the Leadership feat. Leadership can be a great and rewarding feat that really adds a lot to the game, but there's a reason the feat is not in the PH. Leadership does, effectively, grants you an additional PC, and all of the benefits and problems that come with it.
The DMG specifically says (on pg106 btw) that the DM is free to disallow the feat if it will disrupt your campaign, and that the DM should also consider the impact of allowing the feat in his game.
Instead of giving you highly under-equipped cohorts with subpar stat placement, the DM really should not have allowed you to take the feat at all, especially in a party that's already eight members strong. I think Ravenharm summed it best by saying
leadership is a complex feat to use and involves lots of trust and work between players and DMs alike....
point being, leadership isn't for every game, and it isn't for every player, party, and certainly not for every dm. most adventures don't support them.
I highly suggest sitting down with your DM out of game to discuss the issue. It might be that he doesn't fully understands the rules for cohorts, underestimated their impact on party balanced, or perhaps feels overwhelmed with trying to keep the game balanced and fun for eight PCs, let alone additional ones.
A possible alternative is to reflavor the cohort granted to your by Leadership as an different, exotic creature/magical beast. The advantage here is that the DM can give the creature gear-appropriate equipment and hand-wave said equipment as being innate abilities and qualities of the creature while still using standard races and stats (armor is effectively natural armor, weapons are effectively natural weapons, wondrous item become its "spell-like abilities", etc.). When the creature levels, it's innate abilities improve (read: the DM give it appropriate gear), the DM doesn't have to include additional loot into his adventurers to compensate for the cohort, and if it dies, there's no treasure flux to worry about since the creature didn't technically have any items.
If your DM is still iffy on the cohort idea, consider requesting an alternative companion feature that grants you a helpful ally without requiring near PC-level gear and spotlight. Something akin to the Obtain Familiar feat (Complete Arcane), the Wild Cohort feat, or even an intelligent item or Item Familiar.
But if your DM refuses to budge, you might just be better off dropping the Leadership feat, and saving those ideas for a different day.
Also...
I don't like the sound of a player who bullies items out of other players for starters and I'd speak with your DM/the player about getting that sorted.
Seconded.
somthing said like that can only come from a really bad experience with the leadership feat. in any case i feel very sorry for your participation in that sort of game.
that being said. in the second version of dnd, if you played a fighter, at 9th level you were also handed a keep with lots and lots of people, which you were in charge of. preists got followers of the faith, rogues made thives guilds and wizards got thier own apprentices.
the concept of cohorts/followers and others isn't a fluke of 3.0-3.5 its been the standard since second edition and even as far back as chainmail. not about playing a different game but refining the one you have.
Just because it was a 'standard' doesn't mean it was a good idea. I played 2nd Edition from start to finish and nobody *ever* accepted those sidekicks. At best, we went, 'here, you guard this border' and we went on adventuring and they were never heard from again.
Yeah... 4e has its own crap...
Oh. You again.
Just because it was a 'standard' doesn't mean it was a good idea. I played 2nd Edition from start to finish and nobody *ever* accepted those sidekicks. At best, we went, 'here, you guard this border' and we went on adventuring and they were never heard from again.
lol. initially our second edition games were very similar. im not going to try to defend it as per i completely understand and accept your point of view.
we then had one player to break the mold and try out a game were he played through his cohorts. the games scale suddenly jumped on a massive level. we were totally out of our element from scaled dungeon crawls to understanding everything dragon magazine was talking about in terms of love intrests, betrayals, responsibility to your fellow man, and a legacy that lasted two campaigns after. our dm had so many plot hooks and other things he could finally throw in he was in heaven, and it was all very well worked out.
the initial player had a thieves guild i recall, the fighter simply added "bandit" to his lord title and unofficially merged his reign with the thieves, and the wizard decided not to take any apprentices seeing how the game changed to a robin hood style where questionable ambitious others could try to take his place as "guild illusionist."
while this worked for our party and our game i admit that this can be very abused and in the wrong hands can destroy a game. also, if your only intrest is in slaying monsters and gather loot as our wizard was, (nothing wrong with that in any way) the game slowed to a crawl. this was fixed two gaming days later with heavy communication with our dm. it worked when i tried it in third edition, but i will side with you that in 4th editions present incarnation it has no place as per balance.
another thing to side with salla is that nothing at that point is concrete and not every gaming party will have the cohesion that we as players enjoyed, you are bound to have players who will try to use it to powergame and you will have dms who will use it at a disadvantage at every oppertunity.
that all said, its still unfair to call it broken, or not a good idea, better to call it a "mature variable rule" that a dm can rule out or payers don't have to pick up in previous games.
i can see why its not in 4th, but who knows familiars/ ranger pets came back all for salla! lol:P
Game is only as good as it's DM and the players allow/make it. Often, simply put, the feat in question, is like everything else in every RPG and every edition EVER...situational. It just gets muddied up by the operator(s) after the fact. This does not necessarilly make it poor, edition specific, or whatever convenient rhetoric short-sighted ppl wish to attach to it to explain their own misgivings or poor XP's w/ it. It's the driver, not the car.
That being said, the DM's ineptitude and a non-team player (bully) has compromised an otherwise standard campaign issue. Not completely your fault in otherwords, but, they want a sacrificial lamb, so...
It is often the hallmark of the weak, ill-tempered, or more often than not, stupid, to point the finger in scapegoat fashion at 'x' or 'y' (feat, race, etc) rather than examine the gestalt as a whole and touch on the more delicate personal issues. It's not usually "this" (x) or "that" (y). It's a melange of several independent variables (mostly other players and their "issues") working in tandem with and, often enough, against the feat (and feat owner) itself, not wholly the feat that fails outright.
That is, if the feat were completely useless or fostered poor game design, the experts (creators) wouldn't have offered it in past editions. It's up to us to use/not use it as we see fit, not strictly interpret RAW and nothing else, then blame it when it doesn't dovetail completely as the text mentions.
The feat itself can work fine, if properly managed. This is not the case however, given the human touch that has maligned its useage. And by that, I mean multiple players directly & indirectly dealing w/ its mechanical and thematic elements for good or ill. Furthermore, it has to synch up w/ the others, so it's a bit more intensive than say Power Attack, etc. That being the case, we usually opt for other venues of character growth, but I would not forbid an intrepid PC from taking it.
You have, and that's fine, I respect that despite not really embracing Leadership much myself. Usually, we'll just hire mercenaries and the like. There doesn't need to be a feat for everything as it were. Some ppl just need to have it spelled out for them in text or be spoonfed, others have more creative initiative, and so on and so forth. Not labeling you as this or that, just saying you're getting static from the feat cuz of 1 PC and 1 DM...
DM works for you and must acknowledge and work around that (feat). This DM hasn't done his job effectively is what I'm saying, and due to that factor, another player is taking advantage and furthering the downward spiral that is your query now. I would totally re-examine the scenario w/ a healthy nod to realism and game balance, not just verbatim text and PC abuse.
again this proves the point of some feats need more communication then others.
:D great examples Aireanna
But I think it is a matter of factors like the Campaign, the DM , and the Party in general (for example in the original post, the strongest fighter in the party , bully / threading members of the party to get the cohorts stuff is a bigger issue then having the leader ship feet.
Cohorts were really designed for games where there is a small number of players, and they are to boost the party's missing numbers. In a large group they are just soaking up everyone else's XP, and that alone is reason for the other party memebers to want the unneeded Cohort gone.
Only and Only if the party needs the cohort and only if the party consents to that need, does it ever get a share of the party loot, otherwise it is all on the player who owns him.
-Second, unless the cohort's gear was purchased from the parties loot, then your cohort's gear belongs to your player. See above the Cohort's gear should be paid for from your PC's share of the loot and not the party.Otherwise the cohort is getting a share of the other group member's loot and then upon getting killed your character gets a larger share.
Any Gear that comes from the Group's loot to pay for the cohort should be returned to the group's pool. You should be using your own personal share to gear the cohort.
Now if the cohort's gear was paid for out of your share of the loot exclusively, then it is in effect your gear and shouldn't be sold off and divided, you bought it from your own money.
If the cohort starts with anything above basic gear, then that gear should not become either your property nor the parties upon death, but instead should be forwarded to the cohort's next of kin as per your contract with the cohort (or common tradition)
Cohort has a family and friends who will enherit what the cohort has. The cohort's wages and earnings and personal gear, all are sent to his next of kin. Only gear expressly purchased for the cohort's use from your personal money is kept (not as payment for services, they are still your property even if the cohort is using them)
If this is the case its one of the min maxy ways that leadership and cohorts get abused.