|
Okay, so I'm in a Runelords game and the GM allowed me to take the leadership feat. My character is a sorcerer/oracle (6/3) working toward an eldritch knight build and my cohort is a bard (7) now. The GM built her and she is awesome. At the moment I have a high enough leadership score that I could back-stab my current companion and the next three, and I'd still have a cohort of max possible level till about 15th level. I'm a charisma build, enough said.
Well one of the other players wants to take leadership now. The problem is, he wants to divert equipment into making it possible for him to do so (and it really doesn't help him much if at all). We picked up a headband of alluring charisma; which I thought would go to my cohort as I already have one; being as she's a bard and it will boost her casting abilities nicely. But the ranger with a 9 (possibly lower) charisma wants it so he can take leadership and bring an npc witch that he and the GM co-opted from a story in Wayfinder (the Tickwood Hag/witch Melissa) as his girlfriend. She's been part of the background story in the game for a while but now he wants to bring her along with the party instead of her just being a background character.
The problem is that we're just leveling up to 9th level and with his penalty and his having an animal companion his modified leadership score is at most a 7. With the headband it is at most an 8. In both cases this gives him a max level for his cohort of 5th level. The cohort would be a walking corps just waiting to happen with at most 30 HP.
Now, his character already has a wolf as an animal companion, so he's not getting overshadowed in the game by action economy. Heck, he's a two weapon ranger with giant as a favored enemy and we just cruised through Fort Ranick with him acting like a human lawnmower. He's getting lots of opportunity to shine; he just has it in his head that we need another healer/support caster so that we can keep going forward a few more combats before we need to rest.
Now, to show exactly how crazy that is; we have 6 players. Yep, with animal companions and cohorts we're a party of 8. We're a walking army but the GM already let everybody know that if they want he will allow any (and possibly all) players to take the leadership feat. Most games the GM won't let anybody take leadership; but our GM is willing to allow everybody to give it a go if they want. Crazy, I know. Here is our party composition;
Ranger 9 (no spells, boost to animal companion)
Wolf companion (8HD)
Barbarian 9
Paladin 9
Rogue 9 (noble drow; don't ask cause it's too silly)
Alchemist/Witch/Tattoo Mystic 4/4/1 (Its an unusual build, I know)
Sorcerer/Oracle 6/3 (magical knack gives me a CL of 8 as a sorcerer)
Bard 7
Yeah, we lack a full cleric but with a paladin, an alchemist/witch, a low level oracle, and a bard we are not hurting for healing at all. We've also got lots of bang in the magic department and a witch already in the party. But our ranger just fell in love with the idea that he can bring his character's girlfriend along even though it has been pointed out that she's probably going to die the first time she fails a save against a fireball.
I am banging my head on the desk in frustration because I don't want to get into a fight over this. If the paladin wanted to take leadership that would be cool, cause she has a leadership score that at least lets her bring a survivable friend to the fight. Even the rogue has a positive charisma mod and could bring a useful companion. But no, it's one of the characters with a charisma penalty that wants to take a charisma driven feat. GAHHHHHHH!!!! (Bangs head on desk again.)
I don't have an actual question here. Just venting. But if one of you great masters of subtle manipulation come up with something I can use to talk sense into our ranger; please share.
Don't kaybosh the ranger player's desire to take Leadership. Think about it from the flip side: would you like it if your buddy tried talking you out of Leadership purely from an optimization standpoint as he/she saw it?
|
|
Wouldn't bother me; because I wouldn't take leadership if I had a negative charisma modifier in a combat oriented game like Runelords due to the fact that my cohorts are going to die in any combat if she has 1/2 to 1/3 my hitpoints. Then my party would have to deal with the fact that I would want to have raise dead on my cohort to avoid the -2 cumulative penalty for killing off each cohort.
Seriously, this isn't going to end well. One badly timed lightning bolt and there won't be a body to raise from the dead.
Wouldn't bother me; because I wouldn't take leadership if I had a negative charisma modifier in a combat oriented game like Runelords due to the fact that my cohorts are going to die in any combat if she has 1/2 to 1/3 my hitpoints. Then my party would have to deal with the fact that I would want to have raise dead on my cohort to avoid the -2 cumulative penalty for killing off each cohort.
Seriously, this isn't going to end well. One badly timed lightning bolt and there won't be a body to raise from the dead.
It'd take a REALLY beefy lightning bolt to outright incinerate someone with 30 hp and a decent CON score.
My point is that you're griping about another player's 'non optimal' choice. The reverse of that can easily be made towards the choices your character has made for this campaign. ;)
|
|
You are all correct that my b$#$!ing to him would eventually cause considerable friction; which is why I'm b!#$@ing to all of you instead. :)
NPC cohorts have a 15 point heroic NPC build from right out of the book in the game that we're in; so (8, 14, 12, 18*, 10, 13) is the expected build if the GM has stuck to the array for an arcane caster (expecting the racial and lev 4 boosts on Int for a witch). I expect her to have 27 HP if she does not have the toughness feat so 30 HP will put her on the ground. One hard hit and we're babysitting or in emergency recovery. Can't say that it will happen, but if it does not a damned thing we can do to stop it except pray to the dice gods. Two more HD would at least put her up where a one shot kill is highly unlikely. But damn it, ogre barbarians freaking hit hard!
And yes, the GM has let us use the retraining rules in the past so that option does exist if our ranger insists on diving down the rabbit hole chasing Alice. SO if he does insist on taking the leadership feat at least there's a recovery option. Thanks for the reminder, Pleiades. Maybe if he insists on this path I'll try to convince him to retrain his level 4 and 8 stat bumps into charisma. That would at least get rid of his chr penalty so that his other modifiers brought him to a neutral score. Hrmmm, that's a thought.
Thanks for all the ideas; everybody.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might want to direct his attention to this item. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People who min/max to floor an attribute should have to pay the price for that choice. This game is about making choices and it sounds like he made his.
It's not crazy at all. A brilliant optimiser and home-brew extraordinaire who posts on these forums gives all his players the Leadership feat for free. It gives the Charisma ability more use in combat situations.
IMO martial characters need the Leadership feat more than other classes, spell-casters have other options like Planar Ally and summoning spells or powerful Eidolons.
Story also plays a huge part in why a character needs a cohort, what type of cohort and what role the cohort will play. Mechanics aren't everything, Pathfinder is a role-playing game after all.
I'm currently playing a half-orc fighter from a noble house who has 4 warrior hirelings who are all old (45-55 yrs old), they reflect the fact that my character comes from a decadent feudal culture, which in the past was quite powerful, just not anymore.
edit: characters that are unlikable or have bad reputations (low Cha) still have friends, maybe not very good friends (could be a back-stabbing political opportunist), definitely a chance to introduce an interesting character into the game.
I don't see that there's a problem.
There are spells out there that boost hit points - the Sihedron Amulet in fact has this ability as a Swift Action. Given the large number of people out there, and the fact the player is having an NPC girlfriend as his Cohort? You're not going to see the NPC rushing into combat or even doing too much to "invoke aggro" to use an MMORPG term.
In fact, witches are usually considered useful buff classes - they enhance people around them (much like Bards work best with groups). So the witch will likely be enhancing the Ranger further, while trying to avoid the attention of enemies.
I will say though I'm surprised your GM is allowing Leadership. You have a party of six. You honestly don't need Cohorts. (Indeed, I ended up regretting allowing Leadership in my own Runelords game, asked the players if they'd give it up in exchange for the NPCs being roleplaying characters who "watch the rear" (and I do have story elements of the former cohorts killing a stray giant or the like that came up onto the Party's rear), and let them replace the Feat.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit the thread tite mislead me into thinkinig this is about some ugly guy with a cat feeling lonely, but the actual topic is much better.
As a GM I never had problems with the Leadership feat even with characters with with low Charisma. Actually every now and then I encourage some of my players to take it because it opens up a vast array of RP opportunities.
To the problem at hand: the NPC girlfriend might not make it through the campaign? That's actually great, because the loss of his beloved is something that screams heavy role play. Let the ranger deal in character with it. Let him be angry at him self for taking her with him on such a dangerous quest not being able to save her. One more reason to stop the bad guys and a great path towards character growth.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I can agree with that Hythlodeus. Provided the player wants to deal with that (I have no idea how he'll react but it should be interesting). So far the only death of a party member or close associate has been me. I got better, but I actually had to push the GM to do it. He'd been softballing a little too much but now seems to have the feel for what we can handle in combat and is pushing us to our limits.
So it will really just be a matter of our ranger handing the serous possibility of losing his lifelong love. And then for us shelling big coin out of pocket to fix the situation if possible. I can't balk at resurrecting a party member since the ranger was the most vocal about getting my character raised when he died. And yeah, in game I consider any character a member of the party. After all, the characters don't know they're being controlled by a bunch of geeks sitting in some guy's living room once a Sunday.
We're probably going to have to let him have his tag along healbot (that seems to be what he wants). That just means that my bard can take some more interesting spell options to support the party. But do I really want to torment the GM by taking haste already? Why yes, I think I just might.
I must confess I've been confused about what the problem is... So the ranger wants to take a "sub-optimumal" feat, what's the big deal about that? It's just one feat across 6 9th level characters (plus companions/cohorts!) Hardly a serious dent in the group's ability to survive or thrive. Have you considered trying to help make it work instead of pointing out why it won't? If the problem is HP - how about getting the cohort a CON boosting item or giving her a Sihedron medallion (for the false life) or any other ability to boost her hp? The "rules" say the cohort should only have a 15 point buy or only be such-n-such level based on Charisma but what does it have to be so? You seem to have some strong system mastery why not be an advocate with the DM for the ranger player to increase the fun of the group, the added nuance to the story, etc.?
|
|
Well, I have directed the player in question to the Diadem that Kalindlara pointed out. And he wouldn't have to spend too much cash to boost his own cohort. We're big on giving items found to the person it is most useful for; and we don't really care about cost on treasure items when we do that.
We also gave her a +1 RoP and a +1 AoNA, so equipping Melissa to be a cohort isn't an issue. Just the player suddenly, without any planning or advanced warning, wanting to divert equipment useful to other characters to himself so he can do something sub optimal. It's a tad annoying.
However, the GM apparently had a conversation this week with the party ranger about how sub-optimal his character, Caleb, taking the leadership feat would be as it would require him to start pouring money down a hole. Told the player that it's entirely up to him, but this is how deep the hole he would be trying to fill is. I don't think he realized there was a -2 penalty to his leadership score when determining his cohort's level just for having an animal companion.
The player's response, "Oh, wait. Yeah that's not going to work." I still pointed out the Diadem for him though. Just in case he changes his mind again. Now that there's a way to keep the GF from becoming a loadstone around our necks as we go forward I'm much more indifferent on the subject.
He can also get Aditional Traits feat, and get Natural born leader as one of his traits, which also helps
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They want a GF and an animal companion... So that they can have not one, but 2 NPC's constantly squawking at him? Sounds like a bad case of masochism to me.
It sounds like the girlfriend is actually a developed character, and most people in the party would be okay with her being around as long as she doesn't get killed and derail the campaign. She's probably not a sexist ball-and-chain caricature.
The other issue is that you don't need Leadership to get a girlfriend. If this is primarily role-playing instead of combat optimization.... well, Superman doesn't need Leadership to be running flying around rescuing Lois all the time.
A couple of alternatives to the Leadership feat that this player may want to consider:
1) Contacts: If this NPC already exists and the player's roleplaying has already established a degree of friendship, the GM may want to award her as a contact with a fairly high degree of trust.
2) Recruits: If the player does not want to be bothered with hordes of followers, the Recruits feat (from Cohorts and Companions) allows him to take a number of cohorts equal to half his character level, with a maximum level four lower than the player character's level. Only one of these cohorts can accompany a player character on his adventures at a time.
|
|
The NPC in question already exists, has been fleshed out as her own character, and is 4 levels behind the party. The PC in question cannot have a cohort higher than 5th level, which is 4 levels behind us so it is feasable in game, just not smart. Having a cohort 4 levels behind us in a very combat intensive game is going to cost a crap load of resources to keep alive. We are currently somewhere in the middle of Hook Mountain and the BBEG for the mod is still out there.
Fortunately the player has decided that it is probably best to not bring a 5th level character to a 9th level battle and is focusing on making himself a better ranger instead of a half baked leader.
I am the only half baked character allowed around here. :p
Well first off a lot of players would agree that leadership is pretty OP to the point where some GM's have banned it out right.
I myself am playing in a group that is playing in the rise of the rune lords AP. My character is a human paladin. I was looking into taking leadership to get a monstrous cohort for a mount. A sleipnir, but I realized that I would have to wait until lvl 18 to get one with leadership because of the it's effective cohort lvl being 16. I decided to go with an animal companion instead via the paladin's sacred bond.
I thought about still taking leadership later on, but my GM ruled I already had an npc companion so I couldn't take it anymore. Our sorcerer ended up getting it instead which a cool cohort that played into his backstory.
My group and me agreed only one PC should be able to take leadership because it was so OP and having anyone else take it would end up clogging the game up with too many npcs and pcs on the board as well as break the balance of the game. But hey different strokes for different folks or groups as I say.
Having cohorts does create an issue with numbers, which is why half the time I send mine into town to do research and take care of business for the party while we keep plugging away.
yeah were kind of that way too right now, my group has six players right now and half of us have some kind of animal/elemental companion, board does get clogged up. Right now all of us are lvl 8 and we just got done taking back Fort Rannick in the 3rd Chapter. We should be hitting lvl 9 soon. You have a pretty interesting build, sorcerer/oracle (6/3) working toward an eldritch knight, hope it works out for you because multiclssing at later lvls can really stunt your growth with higher lvl abilities. I my self am working on paladin with a dragon mount.. To much detail to explain here, but check it out if you get the chance. Any feedback is appreciated.