*groan* Cohort Questions.

[Kristivas]

First off, I'd like to start by saying that I don't want to ban the Leadership feat. Let's just get that out of the way. It fits for my game, because the PCs are flying around in an Airship (and are going to try and create a base) that really needs a crew/bodies. The followers minus a cohort also doesn't seem worth a feat. I don't mind the cohort, but...

The character taking the feat is a 2 handed, charging, one-hitter-quitter Warblade. He's not lacking in rear-stomping ability.

And he wants a Psion for a cohort. He's level 13, which would add an 11th level Psion (Shaper, because of course it's a Shaper) to an already pretty strong group.

I've played a Psion. I know how powerful they are, and while I wouldn't mind if a PC was there going Nova, an NPC?

It would feel wrong to say "no psionics", as Psionics has featured heavily in the game so far.

I've considered "players handbook classes only" and other such limits. Wanted to get some advice from the sages of the internets.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Leadership is funny, it fit thematically with a lot of what D&D does but also can break games.

We have tried a few different idea's in the past with variable results...


1) Cohorts have worse stats (some times even 3d6 place as you get)
2( Cohorts must be same class as person with leadership
3) Cohorts come in with only basic non magic equipment
4) cohorts are made by the GM

depending on your group one or multi of these may work...

 

[Elf Witch]

I have allowed the leadership feat but with qualifications. If I think the class will over power the party and make my job to hard I will say so and say no. I said no to a druid cohort once because in the party we already had a druid and her companion, and two magic users with familiars. Adding a second druid with animal companion would just start to bog the game down especially if both summoned nature's ally. I also won't allow a cohort that is going to step all over someone else feet either.

I don't think making the cohort the same class as the PC is always a good thing see my example above.

I am of the belief that talking with your players over a problem is the best way to go instead of making rules to stop them from doing something.

 

[Kristivas]

I am of the belief that talking with your players over a problem is the best way to go instead of making rules to stop them from doing something.

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you.

I tend to run a rough game. I allow the players just about any build, any (rules legal) trick they can justify with a book, simply so that I can go nuts with designing hard, but rewarding encounters. So, while they'll accept me saying no.. the player in particular (my RL brother) will want to give up the least amount of advantage as possible. If I leave it to him to help me come up with something.. as he isn't the most rules-knowledgeable guy.. he'll try to get the smallest nerf as possible. That's why I asked here for some acceptable way to regulate.

Suggestion for being the same class: He's a Warblade and he wrecks baddies outright. Doesn't do much to help me with the OP aspect.
Suggestion for terrible stats: As long as the int is kinda high, a Psion can still be ridiculous.
Suggestion for non-magic gear: As with stats, even a naked Psion can be mighty. The character would eventually get gear.

I don't care for the thought of making the cohort all on my own, and it would be kinda difficult after already saying "Cohorts are designed based on what the player wants".

I don't think I'd mind, except he kinda only wants one of the few classes that, even without a PrC, are harder to challenge without going to extremes, but I've backed myself into a corner here.

 

[Li Shenron]

By all means, run the cohort yourself. Don't let the player control the cohort as if he was playing 2 PCs. Treat the cohort as an NPC.

Apparently you've already agreed that you'll let the player build the cohort. This could have been done differently, including semi-randomly (e.g. letting the player choose class, race and general concept but then rolling stats, spells, feats at least from a subset). You can still do this when the cohort levels up, even if you let the player completely build the cohort at the starting level.

 

[delericho]

First off, I'd like to start by saying that I don't want to ban the Leadership feat. Let's just get that out of the way. It fits for my game, because the PCs are flying around in an Airship (and are going to try and create a base) that really needs a crew/bodies. The followers minus a cohort also doesn't seem worth a feat. I don't mind the cohort, but...

Personally, I would ban Leadership in any group with 5 or more PCs - they don't need the backup and you don't need to be juggling the extra complexity. But that's just me.

And he wants a Psion for a cohort. He's level 13, which would add an 11th level Psion

Hang on - does it, though? Bear in mind that Leadership doesn't give you a cohort of your level -2, it gives you a cohort depending on your Leadership score, with a maximum of your level -2. To get an 11th level cohort you need a Leadership score of 16 or more, which means he needs a Cha bonus of +3 or more.

Assuming that you do decide to allow him a cohort, and indeed you allow him an 11th level cohort, I wouldn't advocate placing lots of extra restrictions in place - in particular, bear in mind that your "PHB classes only" still leaves the Druid open!

However, I would:

- Build the character myself, and don't go for an optimised build.

- Build the character using either the Standard Array for abilities, or perhaps a 28-point buy.

- Equip the character as an NPC of his level. (You should be doing this anyway, but probably good to have a reminder!)

 

[billd91]

One other suggestion - don't increase the treasure you put into the game. That cohort needs to be equipped out of whatever else is out there that the PCs obtain. When we play with them, we generally expect the cohort to be equipped out of his leader's share. That may give him a little pause.

I also generally build the cohort as DM, not the player. I'll build to some specifications the player voices such as "I'm looking for a rogue-flanking buddy to complement my fighting style" or "I want someone to help me make magic items" or "We need a back-up healer, badly." But then I generally make the character. I let the player run them in combat under the assumption they coordinate well and it's easier on me. But I run them outside of combat with a lot of "Yes, sir" and the giving of advice and sometimes, when being put to too dangerous a task, "No, sir".

 

[Arduin's]

I've considered "players handbook classes only" and other such limits. Wanted to get some advice from the sages of the internets.

This one is too easy. There are none around that want anything to do with the PC. And, unless they grow on trees, that would probably be the case anyway.

Done.

 

[Grogg of the North]

I tend to use Leadership as a means to fill a gap that the party has. If the party feels that they have everything covered, then I wouldn't allow Leadership.

If the reason the player wants Leadership is because s/he wants a crew for the airship and to man their fort, come up with an in game reason for people to flock to their banner. Perhaps the party liberates them from slavers and in gratitude some of the ex-prisoners stay behind. The party is becoming pretty powerful since they're 13th level. Perhaps so many people have heard of them that they want to be part of their legend? Something similar to the Dread Pirate 10th level ability?

 

[nijineko]

i would look over the build before making any decisions. maybe suggest a sangehirn for healing or some other support focused type as a lead up. see what they come up with, and if i can work with it, no worries. i'm a big "rule of yes" dm, and i allow all official 3.x material in my campaigns. so my players come up with some crazy builds. right now my group (Epic Fetch) is about level 19 and at least one has a cohort. i haven't had any difficulty challenging them yet! feel free to pm me if you want more detailed accounts and feedback.