Leadership

[Velmont]

I just want to make things clear about that feat, because I know that we already talk about it, but I can't find anything.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Leadership:

As found in the SRD, with one precision:

As the player will have many game master, the cohort is created and controlled by a player just as he would do with a familiar, paladin's steed or animal companion.

Followers are NPCs, and are controlled by the game masters.

Leadership adjustment (like faireness and generosity) can be awarded by judges only.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, as you see no modification, just a few things to make the feat clearer. I would like, for the sake of being clear, if you just don't want to see the feat in LEW, judge should say No so it can be archived and easily found again.

Thanks.

 

[nimisgod]

As a Judge, I would say No to the entire feat. IMO, Leadership is a potentially powerful feat that requires extensive GM control. GMs in LEW don't need the hassle.

 

[Bront]

This is good to bring up, because I had pondered using the Leadership for Mount rules offered in the DMG for one character (Instead, I think the Outrider class helps deal with that issue for anyone without another way to get an improved mount).

Perhaps we simply need to either offer rules for other mounts, or create a new feat for it.

I think Leadership is reasonable, but I understand it's problems implementing it here.

 

[El Jefe]

I thought we voted in the entire SRD a long time ago (before I got here). Leadership is in the SRD, so...

I suppose it could always be up to a GM to decide if he or she wanted to allow a character with that feat. We already allow GMs to disallow psionics or certain alignments if they don't fit the adventure or if the GM just isn't happy with that sort of game.

 

[LogicsFate]

What about replacing it with a cohort only feat? It would be eisier to manage, though not as powerful in a low level world

 

[GnomeWorks]

I don't see an issue with a cohort-only feat (in fact, I vaguely recall seeing one somewhere... I don't have my books on hand at the moment, but I recall there being two feats that split the two facets of Leadership between them somewhere), but IMO followers in LEW is just a bad idea.

I think having a PC-controlled cohort wouldn't be too much of an issue... as it was pointed it, it would work just like a familiar or animal companion, though a touch more intelligent. While it could, theoretically, give a player two characters for the price of one, I don't see an issue with it, considering you have to spend a feat for it, and they are always lower level than you.

We would have to address if they get an XP share, though. Do they get a share of their player's share? Or are they treated as a seperate entity? That would have to be addressed.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I don't see an issue with a cohort-only feat (in fact, I vaguely recall seeing one somewhere... I don't have my books on hand at the moment, but I recall there being two feats that split the two facets of Leadership between them somewhere), but IMO followers in LEW is just a bad idea.

I think having a PC-controlled cohort wouldn't be too much of an issue... as it was pointed it, it would work just like a familiar or animal companion, though a touch more intelligent. While it could, theoretically, give a player two characters for the price of one, I don't see an issue with it, considering you have to spend a feat for it, and they are always lower level than you.

We would have to address if they get an XP share, though. Do they get a share of their player's share? Or are they treated as a seperate entity? That would have to be addressed.

There was a cohort-only feat in the Draconomicon: Draconic Cohort. It restricted the cohort to dragon-only, but in exchange it ignored up to 4 of the dragon's LA when determining its effective cohort level--I allowed it in my game (where the other players all have normal Leadership) and the dragon cohort is still by far the weakest member of the party because the LA has been overestimated for them. Anyways, not sure if that helps any.

 

[GnomeWorks]

No, I don't think that's it... but I'm posting from a gamestore right now, so I should be able to find it in one of the books on the shelves maybe twelve feet away.

 

[Bront]

We would have to address if they get an XP share, though. Do they get a share of their player's share? Or are they treated as a seperate entity? That would have to be addressed.

A cohort earns experience proportional to the PC actualy.

Cohorts earn XP as follows:
The cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP.
Divide the cohort’s level by the level of the PC with whom he or she is associated (the character with the Leadership feat who attracted the cohort).
Multiply this result by the total XP awarded to the PC and add that number of experience points to the cohort’s total.
If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than the associated PC’s character level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed attain the next level.

The end result is a cohort tends to stay at the same level disadvantage it starts with (Though, there is a chance it will eventualy catch up, it seems unlikely given the proportions). So a cohort is always at least 2 levels lower than the PC.

I don't see Cohorts being a problem. Yes, it's an extra PC, but it's a support character who is lower level than the regular PC, and as far as rewards go, doesn't count against the other players (Which means gold wise, the Cohort/PC is actualy at a disadvantage).

 

[Rystil Arden]

(Though, there is a chance it will eventualy catch up, it seems unlikely given the proportions)

Actually, the rules say that if this happens, then the cohort fails to level, remaining 1 XP below the next level until the PC levels first. Coincidentally, if the cohort has any spells or feats that expend XP and something like this happens, this is the perfect time to use 'em--might as well