arguing with my DM: The Leadership feat(and a wizard)

[Dzyu]

Ok, let me take you way way back to 1st edition. We did this too. We built strongholds and got followers. We started businesses, built temples, founded kingdoms, etc. But in the midst of all this, we started noticing that the differences between henchmen, retainer, followers and just regular old NPC's which we'd forged a friendship with in game started getting really mixed up. The only way we could tell them apart is by labelling them. "So do you want to make X your henchmen?" and we started asking questions like, "Why do we need all these arbitrary distinctions anyway?"

So here is my question to you. Suppose you don't take the leadership feat? What prevents you from going out and attracting an apprentice with old fashioned legwork and role play? Suppose you don't take the leadership feat? What prevents you from opening a store, employing some other mage to work there, and developing a friendship with your employee so that he trusts and admires you maybe (at least a little, I mean you do have 7 chr).

Most importantly, what sort of role playing oppurtunity does taking a leadership feat provide, that isn't provided by roleplaying seeking out an apprentice, role playing convincing that apprentice to take you as a master, and so forth? I think you may find that the Leadership feat is actually an alternative to RP, not a facillitator of it.

So maybe it should be more of a thing like it was in 1st edition? Well, the leadership rule is there as a feat, I think, to make this option visible and available to the PCs and easy to incorporate into the game balance. Especially considering the cohort part. Applying your thinking about the followers-percpective I should be able to go into a library, sit there and read all day and gain ranks to knowledge skills without leveling. Sure, it makes sense from a RP perspective, but it's just not the game.

 

[Dzyu]

With an Int of 25 you're not trying very hard imho.

I'm maxing int as a true wizard because that's what benefits me the most. I actually rarely get a use for the will save.
What's wrong about having 25 int when you play pathfinder(human+2 bonus to any one ability) in an epic campaign (25 pts in the point buy system and you pick 18 int) giving you 20 to start with, you get +1 int on lvl 4 and buy yourself a headband of vast intelligence +4? Don't nearly all wizards do this?
Surely it must be possible to be as good as possible within the rules without breaking game balance completely?

What special power would that be? Certainly not being a 7th level wizard, as they could then have just increased the leadership score by 1 in general as then every 7th level PC would have such special power.

Yeah, I actually asked, or meant to ask in my original post anyways, what exactly this means. What would you consider a special power in regards to this bonus?
I'm not sure at all myself, but if I was the DM and it was up to me I would probably say that if not the spellcasting is good enough, the fact that Faegan's amazing will save(brain wired differently thing, savant mind feat) could be it. Same with the monk's raven kick(charge/trip/bull rush fly-kick), the paladin's fascinate ability and overall golden tongue, and the rogue's Combat Trance which in some ways works like a vampire's "torpor" ability or whatchacallit. Amazing speed and whatnot.
But then again I am the sort of DM who basically give my players the benefit of the doubt and then take it as a personal challenge to balance whatever they come up with in game.

I think you have to work out two different Leadership scores. One for the cohort and one for the followers. The bonuses from the tables Attracting Cohorts and Attracting Followers each only apply to cohorts and followers respectively.

Oh, right, tanks for the heads up. Didn't notice that.



To those of you who keep saying Faegan will have a lvl 3 cohort and such. I won't actually. The DM said we qualify for the great renown bonus if we complete the current mission, and frankly, Faegan isn't aloof or cruel or anything. He's just not very charismatic. So I don't think he deserves any extra penalties. In addition, he's fair and generous. Our group gave 16 wagons of treasure back to the town. The mayor stole it all afterwards, but that's hardly our fault. We did in fact go after him, but failed to retrieve the gold, so maybe we get a -1 for a failure, but that seems a bit harsh imo. Faegan isn't a failure overall. He doesn't have a familiar either. He's got a bound ring.
So taking this into consideration for a cohort, I get a cohort only 2 levels behind me in levels, which is the highest lvl attainable for a cohort, with a leadership score of 9 at lvl 7, even if he gets a -1 bonus for failing to retrieve the town's gold.

Sure, the cohort may die and subsequently decrease the lvl of future cohorts, but that's an acceptable risk. Faegan will take good care of his apprentice.

 

[amysrevenge]

To those of you who keep saying Faegan will have a lvl 3 cohort and such. I won't actually.

BUT, it might be easier to convince your DM if the cohort did end up being level 3, rather than if it is level-2 and an actual asset...

Unless that's what you're after, I suppose.

 

[pawsplay]

If you want an actual apprentice instead of a shopkeeper cohort, the DMG II rules are probably better.

 

[Oryan77]

First of all, to those that keep using Raistlin as an example of an anti-social but very inteligent mage with an apprentice.....his apprentice wanted to kill Raistlin from the very moment he became an apprentice. Imagine what a player (basically playing Raistlin) would say if you had the cohort attempt to murder the PC? Even though as DM I think that would be fantastic, we all know the player is going to flip out like a ninja and cut someones head off.

My concern is that the GM is essentially telling the player what his character concept is.

I completely agree with you. I wasn't saying the DM was right in what he was saying. I was trying to first figure out the DMs thought process since he's not here to explain himself. Then I'm assuming to know where he's coming from and trying to justify his logic towards his players request (even though I still think he's overstepping his boundaries as DM).

My intent is for him to realize that what I say ISN'T stupid and ridiculous, as he has mentioned several times. A DM shouldn't get personal when a player argues with him about rules.

You're absolutely correct. And I don't think your request is stupid. There is no reason you can't take the feat. But....

About the overpowered part.

the campaign is obviously a bit Monty Haul-ish...that's fine if that is what is expected from the group. Here's where I see the problem:

You said the DM is fairly new at DMing. Try to put yourself in his shoes so you can figure out why he's randomly banning or approving feats/spells. He's still getting a feel for running a game. One of the biggest mistakes new DMs make is getting excited about all the eyecandy and allowing PCs to get overpowered so he can also use overpowered NPCs. Then when the PCs are badass and smashing through his encounters, he gets a bit jealous because he's not feeling very badass himself...his special powers and eyecandy that he thought was gonna be fun to play with aren't as powerful against the PCs as he expected!

The DM is still a D&D player also, he wants to have fun with his NPCs power. He may not want to kill the PCs, but he still wants to rough em up a bit. It's part of the fun of the game. When there's a powergamed PC that just coasts through encounters, it can make it less fun for a lot of DMs...maybe you can relate as a DM.

I'll guarantee this is why your DM is being flakey with feats & spells. He's probably regretting all the power he's given you guys now. But he's trying to deal with it by making restrictions in the middle of the campaign. I mean, isn't it funny that every single PC has all these custom feats, epic point buys, and he let you have a +4 headband at level 7? But then he restricts a few legitimate feats and spells? Why? Because they are overpowered? The PCs were given much more overpowered feats that he created! That makes no sense

Actually, getting charisma-increasing magic items should not be a big problem...

And this is exactly what I was expecting to hear! I was drinking tea and tapping my feet while I waited to hear this exact response.

Powergamers always start out with a character concept in mind even though they usually don't roleplay it. Then later in the game when they think of a new "power" but it contradicts their character concept, rather than not doing it because it won't fit their original character concept, they try to think of reasons why it can be worked into their character concept so they can powergame.

So you told the DM that your character is gonna have all these flaws (mainly because you wanted to have an extremely high Int, not because you thought a flawed PC would be fun to roleplay). So he thinks, "hey, this might be an interesting character. I can't wait to see how he roleplays this guy in game". Then, he makes up a feat so you aren't a crippled 1-trick pony (which actually makes you way more powerful rather than just having a reasonable Will save). Then, being a powergamer, you know how strong the leadership feat can be. But this doesn't fit your character concept, so you come up with an explanation for how it could fit. You try to down play it by saying that you have a low Cha score, so the feat won't be as powergamey, but what you really intend to do is eventually boost that Cha score up so you can gain more followers and you are already aware of powers that will give you the same level of cohort you'd have if you didn't have a low Cha score.

Sure, the cohort may die and subsequently decrease the lvl of future cohorts, but that's an acceptable risk. Faegan will take good care of his apprentice.

I mean come on, you really can't figure out why your DM might have a problem with you taking the leadership feat? Really?

I'm not blaming you for anything at all...I blame the DM for letting your game get to this point. But I am shaking my finger at you because you know what you're doing, you know why your DM is suddenly tripping, and as a fellow DM, you should know better

 

[aboyd]

The GM does not really have the prerogative to say,

"This character is not that combat-oriented, you cannot take Weapon Focus."

"This character is not that diplomatic, you cannot take Skill Focus (Diplomacy)."

"This character prefers wands to staves, he would never spend that much on a staff."

"This characters is not that sneaky, he can't take a level of Rogue."

Sure. Although I do think he has the prerogative to say,

"This character is not a fighter, so you cannot take Weapon Focus, because I've decided that it's a fighter-only feat in my game."

"This character is not that diplomatic, you cannot do an Aid Another for a Diplomacy roll, because I've instituted a minimum Diplomacy score for doing such Aid Another checks."

"This character's Double Wand Wielder feat works only for wands, I won't allow it to work with staves."

"This character doesn't have a Dexterity of 14, which I've house-ruled to be the minimum Dexterity allowed for taking the rogue class, so he can't take a level of Rogue."

I'm not suggesting that what I've written is accurately depicting the tenor of the OP's DM, just that we don't really know, and your scenario is as likely as mine. My suspicion is that it's actually neither mindset. I continue to think that a player who comes to En World and posts about "arguing with my DM" and offhandedly mentions his 25 Int at level 7 and how he's got a custom feat that applies that Int bonus to Will saves and oh by the way the DM is mean for not allowing even more stuff... well, I think there is some entitlement going on there. I think the DM is probably exasperated, and I think that's what is really playing out at their gaming table.

But whatever. It's all speculation.

 

[pawsplay]

I feel that whether the player is acting from a sense of entitlement is irrelevant. In my view, it's the job of the GM to provide a coherent environment in which storytelling aspects and game mechanics work together. I can't see arbitrarily (yes, arbitrarily) restricting this feat as anything other than introducing a disruptive ruling into the game. It will not satisfy the player's character concept, and it will not help balance.

Stating that it's the GM's prerorogative to define the rules is circular... that authority is what makes them the GM. I cannot help noticing, aboyd, that none of the hypothetical examples you gave flies in the face of logic... unlike, for instance, deciding that an un-charismatic genius cannot acquire loyal cohorts. Since I don't know how dual wand use works, exactly, I can accept that the techniques don't apply to staffs, and modifying the Diplomacy rules presumably has some expected payoff in terms of improving the game.

"I think a genius but socially inept wizard having loyal followers is stupid," doesn't quite have the same force of logic behind it. I've seen d20 games with abilities like Genius Leadership and such that allow you to use your Int instead of Cha for attracting followers, on the basis that your reputation and penchant for being right overrides your unimpressive personal presentation.

 

[aboyd]

Most of the time he listens to my advice, but lately it seems he's been putting his foot down and saying no seemingly just for the reason of excersizing power as a DM, despite all logic presented.

OK, so he's tired of you pushing him. Maybe you should take the hint.

Another thing is he's decreed that besides from the core book anything we want to use from 3.5 rulebooks such as spell compendium and other books must go through him every time. As such I've been approaching him on a daily basis asking for feats from this book and spells from that book. I'm guessing he feels I ask for much and so has put his foot down just for the sake of saying no some times.

So he's feeling overwhelmed, and he's taken a step to reign it in, and you've basically pressured him over & over again, to the point of (by your own words) daily nagging until he starts saying no "just for the sake of saying no."

If you're such a senior DM, you ought to have respected his need to reign it in, and you ought to have been a shining example of a player who uses only the core books.

I've actually linked this to him, and if he's a good DM he will reconsider. I know I would, but I started DMing 15 years ago and have a tad bit more experience.

God. That's not loaded at all. Nope. Not at all. He'll feel great that you've essentially gone on record stating that he either does it your way or he sucks as a DM. Excellent. Well, when he comes here to read this stuff, he can also read my response: Dude, your "player with 15 years experience as a DM" is playing you, and is rude to put you between a rock & a hard place like this, and if you feel put upon, you are right to feel that way. Frankly, I would give this player the boot. He's manipulating you.

Actually, getting charisma-increasing magic items should not be a big problem... What is more followers gonna help when your cohort is at max level anyway? Even with 7 charisma I'll get the "great renown" and "guildhouse" bonuses. Add to that "special power" and "fairness and generosity" and I'll have +6. Subtract aloofness and moves around alot, which are possible negative modifiers, and maybe even followers of different alignment, and I've got +3 left. That's a leadership score of 10 on my current lvl, and enough for a max lvl cohort.
My point is that gold possibly spent on charisma-items, while seemingly imba, costs alot! It's better spent on a +6 headband of int, tomes of int and the like. The headband of mental prowess costs too much. Maybe I'll invest in an ioun stone of charisma though.

Ah. So you've asked the DM for an inch, but you're already planning to take a mile. Wow.

Look, you're using your experience as a DM, and his inexperience as a DM, to backseat drive. You want to be a player, then play and stop trying to make this guy your puppet.

 

[Celebrim]

Look, you're using your experience as a DM, and his inexperience as a DM, to backseat drive. You want to be a player, then play and stop trying to make this guy your puppet.

Amen.

I read that post and I went from thinking that it was bad DMing (changing the rules midgame) to a problem player in hurry.

I should add that changing the rules midgame without gaining the consent of the player is the only part of this that I disagree with the DM on. I think the DM has every right to say, "Leadership now has a minimum CHR of 9 as a prerequisite. You can look for an apprentice who is motivated to learn under your tutelege, but such an apprentice will likely be just a basically self-interest NPC who wants something from you, not a loyal follower who is devoted to you.", but I don't think that a DM should spring this on a player in reponse to the player trying to take the leadership feat if only because doing that is going to lead to conflict. Even if I thought the Leadership feat bad (which I do), its not worth the disruption at the table to fight for my opinion here, and the best thing to do is make the most of it.

However, the more the player in this exchange talks, the more clear it is that he tries to brow beat the DM over every decision which removes all sympathy I have for him, and frankly, I don't think he deserves to sit at the DM's table. He can take his 15 years of experience, shove off, and go find some players.

 

[Oryan77]

Ah. So you've asked the DM for an inch, but you're already planning to take a mile. Wow.

That is exactly what my last post was trying to say...only in a lot more long-winded way

I read that post and I went from thinking that it was bad DMing (changing the rules midgame) to a problem player in hurry.

Yup, I came to the same conclusion. Only I still think it's both bad DMing (but that's ok, he's still learning) and a problem player (he's been playing at least 15 years, he should know better).

Now I really hope the DM reads this thread so people can give him some advice on how to handle his powergaming player. What's even funnier is, the OP probably linked this thread to his DM to prove that he's right and should be allowed to take advantage of him. I hope the DM will walk away realizing that his player is right...but he's being a problem player and should let the DM do his thing for the better of the game.

It doesn't really matter though. If a game gets to the point where a player is coming online to bitch about his DM, that game is going to implode pretty soon anyway. Everyone in the group is to blame in this case. And unless they all do an overhaul on their characters and the campaign mechanics, that campaign isn't going to survive. That's just what happens when you give too much and the players want to take even more.