Revisiting Leadership.

[Rystil Arden]

I agree with everything you said. None of my LEW characters has an 18. I was introducting the 30 point buy with restrictions as a compromise, but I'll gladly withdraw the idea. You've pretty well showed why I like cohorts with 25 point buy even better than the 30 point buy with restrictions. The difference between a 16 and an 18 is the same as the difference between a 14 and a 16. You can make perfectly effective, well-rounded characters with 25 point buy if you keep the highest stat of 14 or 15. Providing something more than that is keeping survivability the same while increasing the cohort's power in her niche. In my opinion, that is undesirable.

My point is that Point Buy isn't going to make the character a show-stealer in an area--a build will do that.

 

[SlagMortar]

My point is that Point Buy isn't going to make the character a show-stealer in an area--a build will do that.

Do you find the show-stealing properties of leadership to be a problem? I'm guessing not. I remember it being a major concern in the original proposal for leadership. If the current method of limiting the show-stealing is ineffective, then perhaps something else could be proposed.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Do you find the show-stealing properties of leadership to be a problem? I'm guessing not. I remember it being a major concern in the original proposal for leadership. If the current method of limiting the show-stealing is ineffective, then perhaps something else could be proposed.

I'm thinking the proposal upthread to let the GM ask the player to rein in a show-stopping cohort is probably best. GMs are better equipped to handle this than an injunction from the judges.

 

[Bront]

Do you find the show-stealing properties of leadership to be a problem? I'm guessing not. I remember it being a major concern in the original proposal for leadership. If the current method of limiting the show-stealing is ineffective, then perhaps something else could be proposed.

Having played in an LEW game with leadership, and with it in other games, I still don't find it a showstealer. I find the LEW version nerfed beyond reason, and realy sucks the potential fun out of a feat that can be used to add flavor to a character normaly.

Cohort <> Mindless slave/damage sponge/cheat.

A cohort is a friend or otherwise generaly loyal companion.

Remember, I beleve a Cohort can be run by the GM as well, correct? And even if the player runs his PC and Cohort, a GM can always step in and say "That's not right."

In our current game, Rinaldo's cohort almost didn't save another PC because it would have ment near certaint death. However, it made RP sense (actualy, it worked either way), and as a result of his sacrifice, my PC is still active in the game, where otherwise I'd be out of play, potentialy for weeks out of game.

I certaintly don't consider that hogging the spot light.

 

[SlagMortar]

I'm thinking the proposal upthread to let the GM ask the player to rein in a show-stopping cohort is probably best. GMs are better equipped to handle this than an injunction from the judges.

That's fair as well. I still like a mechanical justification better, but I can agree to disagree with that.

Having played in an LEW game with leadership, and with it in other games, I still don't find it a showstealer. I find the LEW version nerfed beyond reason, and realy sucks the potential fun out of a feat that can be used to add flavor to a character normaly.

I guess I'm totally failing to see the extent of the nerf. How is the cohort having 15 intelligence instead of 18 intelligence "nerfed beyond reason" when compared to any other feat?

In our current game, Rinaldo's cohort almost didn't save another PC because it would have ment near certaint death. However, it made RP sense (actualy, it worked either way), and as a result of his sacrifice, my PC is still active in the game, where otherwise I'd be out of play, potentialy for weeks out of game.

I certaintly don't consider that hogging the spot light.

I may be in the minority, but that sounds exactly like the cohort stealing the show. I'm not saying that it resulted in a bad play experience or that anyone should have hard feelings about it or that it wasn't a fun game. I am saying that Velmont got to play two heroes instead of one. I'm not even saying that's a problem, except that it seems to go against the spirit of LEW.

I have some other character ideas I would like to try out in LEW, but I'm pretty happy with

 

[Rae ArdGaoth]

Here are my two major issues with Leadership:

A: It allows players to essentially have more than 3 characters.
B: It's a feat that is clearly better than any other, and a PC with it is almost guaranteed to be better off than one without it.

A is moot, since it's already passed, and I'm sure it would pass again.

B is more relevant. I think that even with the 25 PB and the 2 level drop, Leadership is a fantastically valuable feat, perhaps too much so. Bront and RA seem to disagree. But compare Leadership to... well, any other feat. I won't go into the details, but just having an extra set of hands is enormously useful.

To me, it's a very minor deal, 25 PB or 30 PB. Point cap or not, same thing. (Point cap does complicate the rules a bit, perhaps, as RA pointed out, needlessly so.) I don't honestly think I could vote either way. There's evidence for all sides. The most important thing is to have a fun, fair game.

Bront and RA feel like they're getting gypped with Leadership. I think the best ruling is to give the cohort 30 PB and remind the DM and the Players that the DM has absolute control over the cohort if need be. We could give this ruling a year long time limit, and reassess the situation in 12 months, allowing any PCs to change to or from Leadership at the start of the trial and at the end. The difference between 25 and 30 is not mind-blowing or game-shattering, so giving it a trial period isn't dangerous or anything. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Bront and RA feel like they're getting gypped with Leadership. I think the best ruling is to give the cohort 30 PB and remind the DM and the Players that the DM has absolute control over the cohort if need be. We could give this ruling a year long time limit, and reassess the situation in 12 months, allowing any PCs to change to or from Leadership at the start of the trial and at the end. The difference between 25 and 30 is not mind-blowing or game-shattering, so giving it a trial period isn't dangerous or anything. Does that sound reasonable?

It's not so much that I think Leadership is a gyp (it clearly isn't, even if you get an NPC that dies and is replaced twice every adventure, it's still a good deal, it is just less fun for the story and character relationships).

That said, I agree with your ruling. Add in my XP method (with which it seems everyone agrees now) to prevent encouraging players to toss away cohorts for new ones, and I'm ready to vote YES for your proposal, Rae.

 

[Rae ArdGaoth]

Ha, I wasn't aware that I was proposing anything! But sure, I'm confident enough in my stance that I'll make it a proposal. If you could restate your XP system, RA, I'll add it to my proposal.

 

[Bront]

I'd agree on both of those points.

However, I started this, so I don't think I can vote.

And I don't think Leadership is a Gyp, as an extra set of hands is fairly invaluable, but we're talking about a game where your followers are a non-issue, and a GM can simply handwave your cohort out of a game, so I don't see it as as much of an issue as it might otherwise be.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Ha, I wasn't aware that I was proposing anything! But sure, I'm confident enough in my stance that I'll make it a proposal. If you could restate your XP system, RA, I'll add it to my proposal.

My XP system is that the cohort gets XP like a normal character for their level (rather than use the by-the-book method that gives them a fraction of the PC's XP). So they catch up the exact same way another PC would catch up. Simple, eh?