Leadership and a giant for a cohort??

[Giddeon]

Hello everyone. OK, as silly as the title sounds, I really would like a little back up on this one. I know I am not alone in this thought within my group and I am sure my DM will rectify this ASAP.
I was privy to a bit of info about my fellow PC's decision on a cohort, or at least what he would like for a cohort. My question is this: Since the level of the cohort is based on the PC's level (2 less after all the modifiers), is it safe to presume the HD of the cohort will be the same if not less, correct?
Another question, what is the limitation of this Leasership feat? I know, look it up. I would but I am away from my resources and I know this is the place to go!

 

[Silveras]

Hello everyone. OK, as silly as the title sounds, I really would like a little back up on this one. I know I am not alone in this thought within my group and I am sure my DM will rectify this ASAP.
I was privy to a bit of info about my fellow PC's decision on a cohort, or at least what he would like for a cohort. My question is this: Since the level of the cohort is based on the PC's level (2 less after all the modifiers), is it safe to presume the HD of the cohort will be the same if not less, correct?
Another question, what is the limitation of this Leasership feat? I know, look it up. I would but I am away from my resources and I know this is the place to go!

The ECL is limited to 2 less than the level of the PC. Since ECL is [Racial Hit Dice] + [Class Levels] + [Level Adjustment], it is guaranteed that the creature's Hit Dice will be less than the level of the PC.

There are some feats in Heroes of Battle that work specifically with Leadership, one of which lets the Cohort have an ECL of only 1 less than the PC.

One of the key restrictions on Leadership is that the DM has to say it is available. A player cannot "just choose it". The Leadership feat is Optional. Also, unless the DM gives special permission for something different, Cohorts are regular PC races (see p. 199 in the 3.5 DMG).

Looking at the 3.5 MM
Cloud LA -- (not recommended as a Cohort)
Fire LA +4, 15 HD, ECL 19, 21st level character required as Leader
Frost LA +4, 14 HD, ECL 18, 20th level character required as Leader
Hill Giants LA +4, 12 HD, ECL 16, 18th level character required as Leader
Stone LA +4 or +6, 14 HD, ECL 18 or 20, 20th or 22nd level character required as Leader
Storm -- (not recommended as a Cohort)

 

[Giddeon]

Thank You. Personally I think it is a power gaming step. It takes the fun out of the game when there is limited challenges. The game becomes unbalanced in my opinion.

 

[werk]

Odds are the DM is only looking at LA instead of ECL...unless you are high level.

I think it is a great concept to have monstrous cohorts, but, as discussed recently, most people think that an ECL over 2 or 3 causes the character to be underpowered when compared to non LA classed characters.

I wouldn't call it powergaming, if calculated correctly.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Thank You. Personally I think it is a power gaming step. It takes the fun out of the game when there is limited challenges. The game becomes unbalanced in my opinion.

That's Leadership for you. The most broken feat in existence unless DM-ed with a fist of iron. Then, it's only the most broken feat in this universe.

 

[Bad Paper]

That's Leadership for you. The most broken feat in existence unless DM-ed with a fist of iron. Then, it's only the most broken feat in this universe.

yeah, I have been faced with the terrible dilemma of a PC in my group wanting to take Leadership. Dilemma is: I hate to say no, but dammit I think I have to.

See, we have 5 in the group, and one is moving to Europe (from California), so we are letting him bow out gracefully at 12th level by grabbing Leadership and setting up a keep. (Actually, he is taking Nightfang Spire, ha ha ha)

So now, one of the remaining four in the group says he is ramping up to grab Leadership at 15th level. I *hate* Leadership. Heck, I even hate animal companions, but I don't let the druid know that. Anyway, what to do? Is there a good way to nerf Leadership so it becomes a big pain in the ass for the PC and not the DM?

 

[Thanee]

Just disallow Leadership, if you don't want it. It's in the *DMG* for a reason.

Bye
Thanee

 

[werk]

I'd just disallow it. If you, as DM, don't like it, then it doesn't belong in your game.

If a DM allows leadership and disagrees with the feat on principle, odds are likely that the feat will either become a liability to the character (my previous scenarios as a player with leadership), or will be so underutilized as to make it not worth taking in the first place...IMHO, of course.

 

[Bad Paper]

Just disallow Leadership, if you don't want it. It's in the *DMG* for a reason.

yeah, but I've already given it to another PC-turned-NPC. It's difficult to go back like that. I try not to give NPCs things that PCs can't have. What's-good-for-the-goose-is-good-for-the-gander, and all that.

Also, Improved Familiar is in the DMG, and while no one has taken it, we haven't found explicit reason to dump it, either. Our group tends to allow/disallow entire books. It's easier than cherry picking feats and spells. "BoED? Nuked!" That sort of thing.

My take on Leadership is that it is a sedentary feat. I think I'll go with that, as the PC who wants it is a cleric of Fharlangn, and they hate to be sedentary.

 

[Krelios]

If a PC wants the Leadership feat, all the DM has to do is make the NPC. From there on out it's the PC's responsibility to play two characters. I don't see why DMs hate this feat so much. I've never disallowed it in campaigns I've run, but I can't convince any of my players to take it anyway. /shrug