everyone in group taking 'leadership'?

[Shin Okada]

i'd be inclined to think that this (taken from the d20srd):i trust my players fully, but i think i'd want an active hand in what goes into the mix, as some weird combination of feats, skills or classes might make something unbalancing - not just for the campaign, but within the group. i stressed that these are basically like sidekicks and shouldn't really outshine anyone within the group itself.

I don't worry much about this.

A cohort is at least 2 levels behind a PC. And by default, a cohort has elite array ability scores and it is often inferior to PC's (I remember in multiple vote threads in EN world, so many DMs were voting that they were using 32-point buy or similar method). Also, as a NPC, a cohort has inferior starting gears comparing to the PCs of the same level.

Regarding builds, if your players have skills and tendency to max-out character builds, they must be doing it on their own PCs already. So cohorts will not outshine in that aspect, too.

 

[irdeggman]

That's opinion, not RAW, right? The RAW is very vague, saying repeatedly that the DM should rule on things for himself/herself.

For example, for me as a DM, I'm inclined to let the player make up a cohort from whole cloth -- they basically get a 2nd character to play that is 2 levels lower than they are. I don't want to regulate it or spend time doing it myself (beyond wanting to be sure that there is no cheating going on -- they have to follow my rules for rolling up stats, and so on). If they do that, fine, one less thing for me to manage. I also set a timer on 'em during their turn. Having multiple characters can bog down the game, so they have to be ready or else they lose a turn.

I never got the impression that my system was contradicted by the rules. However, I'm going my memory; I don't have the rules in front of me.

Nope it is in fact RAW

DMG pg 106

"The DM determines the details of the cohort. The cohort has gear as an NPC."

 

[Drowbane]

are there any downsides or pitfalls to this? two of our group of five are leaving soon, so the remaining three have decided that the next feat they shall all acquire is 'leadership', in hopes of shoring up defenses and making up for lost man-power.

as a DM, should i be worried?

Three players? Hell, let them make thier own cohorts and give them PC wealth. even 6 PCs shouldn't be that big an issue. Right?

 

[wolfpunk]

For nearly three years my gaming group has consistent of a DM and two players. It is not uncommon for us to each make two characters and have one or two of the characters take leadership so that we can get up to five or six characters.

What usually happens is the cohort ends up being some sort of "buff" or "heal" bot. The cohorts have never really had a huge moment in a combat scene because of something they did directly.

Another commonplace is having the cohort act as the scout, so usually a rogue, or sometimes actually a scout. Basically, just filling in the spots that the players don't want to do themselves.

So, I don't think you are going to have a problem. Even with optimum builds the two level disparity makes it hard for them to steal the spotlight.

 

[Runestar]

I don't think any player will want his cohort to outshine his main PC either.

 

[roguerouge]

As the DM of a single PC campaign, I don't really see why having merely three PCs is a problem. The players are over-reacting. Try it without for a while, then see if they need more peeps. If they do, do they really need three?

 

[aboyd]

"The DM determines the details of the cohort. The cohort has gear as an NPC."

Right. So I determined to make the player do it so I wouldn't have to.

 

[Deset Gled]

As the DM of a single PC campaign, I don't really see why having merely three PCs is a problem. The players are over-reacting. Try it without for a while, then see if they need more peeps. If they do, do they really need three?

I'ved never DMed for a single PC before, but I have done it for two. While I actually enjoy the smaller groups for some types of play, it's not something you can just switch to mid game. You need to have the characters designed for generalization rather than specialization. Whether or not you have access to certain class based functions (like healing, teleporting, trapfinding, tanking, etc) can make a huge difference in the way the game is played. In the case the OP describes - where you lose members and get whittled down to three players - it might just not work out. Add in the fact that the players all want to try out different builds, and I think that adding in more characters per person is perfectly reasonable.

If everyone involved wants to take Leadership, I honestly wouldn't bother making any of them do it. Just have every player work with two characters. It will give more variety, and will give the players the character-building fun they want.

 

[washout]

I think the only time I would consider the leadership feat overpowered would be in the case of an existing overpowered class like Druid, Wizard, or Cleric taking one to double existing firepower. Around 8th level especially I'd think there would be some problems because having cohorts capable of double attacking and fireball chucking is pretty powerful.

As far as a underpowered class (rogue, fighter, etc.. most melee) taking one then I think it's actually a great way to shore up the class. It's especially interesting when the character goes out of his way to find solid roleplaying reasons for the cohort.

 

[Angrydad]

I'm about to start a campaign with only four players, which is lower than our normal 6-7 players, hence the "only 4" part. Last time I ran a game with only 4 players we ended up with a swashbuckler, a fighter who focused on archery, a monk, and a rogue. Zero spellcasting ability. It made things very interesting and they pulled off a lot of entertaining things despite the lack of magical firepower, but the party eventually grew into 8 players with a number of NPCs. This newest group is 4 players and we have a cleric, a barbarian, a sorceror, and one undecided player (who'll most likely go with a fighter type). I've found that smaller groups tend to be more fun because they allow each player more face time as well as increasing the overall play speed of the game. I have almost zero experience with the Leadership feat in any game I've run since either I build an NPC to fill in a vacant function anyway, or the players are happy to multiclass into some weird abomination of a build.

Just run the game with 3 players a while and see how they fare. You may encourage them to get ranks in Use Magic Device so they can get wands of CLW or some similar items (if they're lacking in healing power). It may require some monkeying on the part of you, the DM, to make encounters that work for only three players, but I think you'll find that it encourages some serious creativity in the players.