Revisiting Leadership.

NakuruSai · May 16, 2007

Velmont said:
32 point-buy? It's just we are using 30 point-buy for LEW...

And I don't like much Someone idea... the best thing I think would be to calculate the XP of teh cohort just as if he was a PC of the group, which could mean less XP to the other PC, but after all, the challenges will be less danegrous because of his presence.

Just a quick example: The dodge feat lessens some of the danger of the party when a melee character takes it because if the melee characters drop, the casters are attacked next. No one argues that if dodge is taken, and the danger of the party is lessened because of that, there should be less xp for the person with dodge or in the party with a person with the feat. What I'm getting at: why should XP come into play at all other than to balance the follower against the person with leadership?

I agree with RA- there should be benefits for sticking with your follower that just bit it. Otherwise there's no OOC reason to stick with them.

Someone's idea of being able to push more xp into the follower is intriguing. Perhaps to further create an ooc reason for doing this, and a greater "bond" between this follower and the feat-taker, you could give a +1 bonus to leadership score (nonstackable, for that one follower) in this instance?

The points the follower should be, I have no comment on - I have little experience in the point buy system. I feel somewhat restricted in this system but I'm used to heavy action and roll-play instead of role-play in meatspace so...*shrug*

Velmont · May 16, 2007

NakuruSai said:
Just a quick example: The dodge feat lessens some of the danger of the party when a melee character takes it because if the melee characters drop, the casters are attacked next. No one argues that if dodge is taken, and the danger of the party is lessened because of that, there should be less xp for the person with dodge or in the party with a person with the feat. What I'm getting at: why should XP come into play at all other than to balance the follower against the person with leadership?

Because an NPC is more versatil than dodge or most feat. As a master, if a group have an NPC with them during a fight, I would probably put an XP penalty, just as I would put an XP bonus for a group of adventurer taking on a monster naked.

For an example, Hogarth have use Spiritual Weapon on an uncorporeal undead when Rinaldo have no way to hit such creature (no magical weapon). Hogarth finished by doing obver the third of the damage on that creature (thanks to Ashnar poor aim). Things could have turned worse without him.

But I agree even then, penalizing other character for the choice of feat of one character is not an idea I like. It would like giving a penalty to every player because teh wizard choose to create an headband of intelligence. In the end everyone will have advanatge at it as more spell will not be saved and teh wizard will have more spell, but it's teh wizard choice to creare that item.

NakuruSai · May 16, 2007

Velmont said:
Because an NPC is more versatil than dodge or most feat. As a master, if a group have an NPC with them during a fight, I would probably put an XP penalty, just as I would put an XP bonus for a group of adventurer taking on a monster naked.

For an example, Hogarth have use Spiritual Weapon on an uncorporeal undead when Rinaldo have no way to hit such creature (no magical weapon). Hogarth finished by doing obver the third of the damage on that creature (thanks to Ashnar poor aim). Things could have turned worse without him.

But I agree even then, penalizing other character for the choice of feat of one character is not an idea I like. It would like giving a penalty to every player because teh wizard choose to create an headband of intelligence. In the end everyone will have advanatge at it as more spell will not be saved and teh wizard will have more spell, but it's teh wizard choice to creare that item.

I think we see eye to eye on the entire party not being discouraged from taking someone with a certain feat or skillset along. I believe the reason there are limitations on this feat however is to balance it closer to what a single feat should accomplish.

For your example with Hogarth, I don't see in that instance why there should be additional penalties beyond what the feat itself gives: the feat chosen and agreed upon to be balanced (even argued in this post to be possibly stronger) is being used in a specific instance where it shows its strength.

If the feat needs to be rebalanced because of an unseen and not voted on strength, then I can understand a temporary penalization of the feat while a ruling occurs, but not an outright penalization because a feat is useful in a situation.

Rystil Arden · May 16, 2007

NakuruSai said:
I agree with RA- there should be benefits for sticking with your follower that just bit it. Otherwise there's no OOC reason to stick with them.

Someone's idea of being able to push more xp into the follower is intriguing.

Ah, but these two things are mutually exclusive, or at least, I argue it is so--if the player is forced to pump XP into the cohort whenever the GM won't let the cohort come or the cohort dies, then the character is being penalised for keeping that same cohort instead of just coming back and firing their cohort (or not raising her) and getting a new one every time the cohort falls behind. What's the penalty? The penalty is that the character is losing XP.

Anyway, I'm already allocating the cohort a share of XP in the adventure (even though the cohort isn't currently getting to keep that XP).

Bront · May 17, 2007

I think I have a solution for the XP level for a Cohort.

The calculation is currently XP * ( Cohort LV / PC LV ) under all circumstances unless the Cohort Level would make the Cohort to high a level.

An easy fix is this: XP * ( Cohort LV + 1 / PC LV ) where Cohort LV +1 is never greater than the highest level a PC can have as a cohort (In most cases, LV -2, but it could be lower). So, if the Cohort looses a level, he can eventualy catch up.

As for the attributes thing, Leadership is realy one of the few feats where the GM can basicly say "No" to (not allow the Cohort to go with), which hurts it. the 25 point buy limits the availability of Cohorts (No functional Paladins, Monks because there aren't enough attributes to go around), and hurts the survivability of low HD cohorts (Who are already at a 2 level disadvantage with HP, and a low HD disadvantage), forcing them to take a higher Con, which limits what else you can do.

I think 28 is good, since it's still not PC level but is close, and with all the other restrictions, we need to throw a Cohort a bone somehow...

Velmont · May 17, 2007

Bront said:
An easy fix is this: XP * ( Cohort LV + 1 / PC LV ) where Cohort LV +1 is never greater than the highest level a PC can have as a cohort (In most cases, LV -2, but it could be lower). So, if the Cohort looses a level, he can eventualy catch up.

I think that could be a nice idea for lower level cohort.

By the way, if I read the RAW, I think the Cohort level is the level at which is teh cohort when you attract it, but the limit on his level is always (PC level - 2).

Bront · May 17, 2007

Velmont said:
I think that could be a nice idea for lower level cohort.

By the way, if I read the RAW, I think the Cohort level is the level at which is teh cohort when you attract it, but the limit on his level is always (PC level - 2).

No, it's his actual current level.

Velmont · May 17, 2007

Oops, misread, you are right.

IcyCool · May 17, 2007

Would it break anything to state that the cohort is always 2 levels lower than the PC? With the following stipulations about XP loss and gain:

1. A cohort never gains XP in the traditional manner.

2. A cohort (when first created) has an amount of XP that would put him halfway towards advancing to the next level.

3. A cohort may never spend an amount of XP that would result in dropping to a lower level.

4. Whenever the PC gains a level, the cohort gains whatever levels are necessary to ensure that they are 2 levels lower than the PC, and the cohort gains an amount of XP that would put him halfway towards advancing to the next level.

So a cohort is pretty much always at a consistent level, and whenever he "levels" he gets a small pool of XP for spending purposes (Item creation, spellcasting, etc.)

This method would mean that a cohort subjected to permanent level loss would instantly make up that loss the next time he "levelled". But that seems like a minor benefit really.

Rae ArdGaoth · May 18, 2007

Bront's method looks complicated, what with all the equations. I know it's really not, but it looks... daunting. I prefer IcyCool's method, it's pretty simple. #1 and #3 are already in the rules, I believe, and #2 and #4 are very easy ways to calculate cohort XP. There's still no advantage for keeping a cohort rather than replacing him, but it does something for the disadvantages.

IcyCool said:
This method would mean that a cohort subjected to permanent level loss would instantly make up that loss the next time he "levelled". But that seems like a minor benefit really.

It would also take away one of the reasons to swap out a cohort. I think that's a good side effect.

--------------------

To offer a dissenting opinion...

The general consensus seems to be that Leadership is too nerfed. I'm not sure I agree, I think Leadership in it's original form is actually one of the most powerful feats in the game. You'd almost be a fool not to take it. IMC, I don't allow Leadership as a feat. If I want my PCs to have a cohort, they get one from me the DM, under my terms, if you know what I mean.

Another thought: Allowing Leadership also allows players to have more than the allotted 3 character limit (albeit at a level disadvantage, and the extra characters come attached to a PC).

I'm not convinced that Leadership should be allowed at all in LEW.

Revisiting Leadership.

NakuruSai

First Post

Velmont

First Post

NakuruSai

First Post

Rystil Arden

First Post

Bront

The man with the probe

Velmont

First Post

Bront

The man with the probe

Velmont

First Post

IcyCool

First Post

Rae ArdGaoth

Explorer

Similar Threads