|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 4, 2018 18:06:50 GMT -6
Two of the players have picked up this feat for 7th level, but as we know, the GM generally dislikes this feat and we're sort of getting the benefits of it already, what with the ability to raise armies and all that. So the question that really comes to mind for me is ... should we ban Leadership entirely for this game? PROS: - The GM won't end up with a serious stress headache.
- We won't have (effectively) twice the number characters present in a fight as opposed to players.
CONS: - If any game we've played calls for having Leadership, it's this one.
- Cohorts are removed, which means some of the utility (e.g., Andrei's cohort was going to be a dedicated rogue since we don't have one) is gone.
Me, I'm okay either way - I don't have strong feelings for or against, although I can see the GM's point about the feat being kind of broken in a lot of ways ("I get an extra plus one to hit with my feat!" "I've got a plus four to my initiative." "I now have a squad of low level flunkies and an extra PC who is just two levels lower than I am.") Alternately, I suppose we could actually adjust the feat in some way. Some thoughts: - Break it up into two feats, one for the cohort and one for the followers?
- Disallow cohorts entirely.
- Use different concepts for the feat: I found one on Paizo that has two options. The first gets rid of both cohorts & followers, but instead provides the PC with a small team of supporters (an artificer, a healer and a sage) who don't go adventuring with them but let them do other stuff;
while the second provides a "patron country" that basically acts like the Ranger's Favored Terrain feature.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Ideas?
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jan 4, 2018 21:29:37 GMT -6
I'm fine either way. I just felt like if any time would be a good time for Leadership then it would be now. I mean we are supposed to be setting up a Kingdom. Cohorts are to be assumed. I've talked about this with N8 but haven't publically expressed my intention with Casimir in order to make things more "fair" 1. I didn't intend for him to be an active party member all the time. Maybe in the niche campaign "mission" where we may need a Paladin but his duties would be both limited and specific. He wouldn't be tagging along indefinitely. 2. Casimir was supposed to be viewed as more of a super NPC. I had planned to have him take the role of General to free up Andrei from two duties. Rigil also asked for some sort of religious advisor that worshipped the same diety as Andrei so that could be an option for him should he want it. Casimir could also act as a liason with Varnhold as it seems like for now they are our newly budding allies. He would mostly be there for knowledge and advice and have someone hold down the fort while we are away. 3. Main purpose for Casimir would be for role-playing value. I haven't pursued a real relationship in game before so I figured why the hell not with this one as Kingmaker seems to be a game that would support PCs forming relationships and throwing down roots. Naturally with Tess being Tess nothing is as simple as having a stable relationship with someone. I find their conflict interesting especially since I don't know how/if it will work out. I've essentially given N8 carte Blanche with him and he has agreed to give him his own minor conflicts, plot points, and story.
I'm trying to tread lightly with this feat as it can be kind of overpowered if a PC truly wants it to be. Hopefully this would provide some balance and understanding in terms of how I view him as a cohort. But I completely understand if the GM wants to do away with it or alter the rules in such a way that it is more balanced in terms of screentime.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jan 4, 2018 21:40:14 GMT -6
I'd like to keep leadership as I think Rigil is right that if there is any campaign where it fits it is this one - I just want to tune it down a little to be more in line with other feats so it isn't ridiculously overpowered but yet not completely useless.
Some thoughts I've had to tune it down is: 1. Lower point buy for cohorts by 5-10 points 2. Further lowering cohort level by 1.
I'm not decided on any of this can could be convinced one way or the other. These could be an and/or thing. I want to make cohorts still useful and fun, but without risking cohorts allowing players to dominate more of the spotlight so everyone has time to shine.
|
|
|
Post by Magman on Jan 4, 2018 22:16:58 GMT -6
I am pretty much neutral on the leadership feat, Walker already has a wolf pack.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 4, 2018 22:38:19 GMT -6
I'd like to keep leadership as I think Rigil is right that if there is any campaign where it fits it is this one - I just want to tune it down a little to be more in line with other feats so it isn't ridiculously overpowered but yet not completely useless. Some thoughts I've had to tune it down is: 1. Lower point buy for cohorts by 5-10 points 2. Further lowering cohort level by 1. I'm not decided on any of this can could be convinced one way or the other. These could be an and/or thing. I want to make cohorts still useful and fun, but without risking cohorts allowing players to dominate more of the spotlight so everyone has time to shine. Could just limit their availability instead.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jan 5, 2018 9:32:40 GMT -6
Their availability in what way?
Say they cannot be used in combat? Have them have ties to an area they must return to so they disappear for periods of time?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 5, 2018 9:56:10 GMT -6
I mostly meant "frequency of appearance" ala GURPS where it could be "9 or less" or "12 or less" for the Ally to be available for the "adventure."
Is it the cohort that's really the issue here for you? Because if that's the case, the simplest solution (IMO) would be "No cohorts, double followers" and then the two existing cohorts created by LabRat and myself could just become NPCs you control.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jan 5, 2018 10:08:44 GMT -6
What exactly is the (GM's) point of contention here anyway? Specifically. Are we trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 5, 2018 10:41:52 GMT -6
This is my current thinking based on discussions/debates with Giger (who decided he didn't want to work so he wandered down to my office to chat): Leadership, in the context of this campaign, is potentially redundant (since the characters, as Leaders in their nation, already sort of have the feat built in) so the GM should just disallow it. We already have followers (standing army and all that) so that part is not an issue and our existing cohorts (Sir Casimir and Liliya) can simply become NPCs that the GM can use however he wishes. Those characters simply won't adventure with use at all (unless appropriate according to the GM). The downside to that is that we're still down a dedicate roguely type, but I suppose if one becomes necessary, we could just hire one. This means LabRat and I need to pick new feats, but I sure both of us can handle that with no prob. Easy peasy. GM doesn't have a stress-induced migraine, everybody's happy. I just want everyone to be happy here and that includes the GM.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jan 5, 2018 11:50:25 GMT -6
Good idea Giger, we should discuss the primary bugaboo I have with Leadership and see if that is enough to help figure out what (if anything) should be done.
To my mind (as well as the general consensus on the 'net - the #1 source for all Truth™) leadership is easily the most overpowered feat in the entire game as it breaks the action economy as well as the player "spotlighting".
Obviously giving a player an entire second character, each with their actions in combat. And worse, they are essentially a puppet to the player as the GM really doesn't have the time to run them in combat (not to mention running the cohort by the GM would lead to the GM attacking "himself" which isn't fun for anyone even though it is technically the other player's character).
It can be even worse out of combat, as a character who dominates in combat can have a "diplomaner" character who now dominates out of combat. So in terms of "focus" one player begins to dominate all the time of the game: in combat they do most of the work, out of combat they do all the talking - it can be frustrating for the other characters as it begins to feel like they are superfluous. This kind of situation is very difficult for a GM to solve as encounters which constantly gimp the player's combat character can get frustrating and/or feel contrived - same for the more social character.
Even outside of the combat/social dynamic, the second character prompts a GM to allow for that cohort to get some spotlight time, but if they are trying to ensure each player gets about the same amount of spotlight time this presents a problem for a GM: either 1. cut out time away from the cohort player's primary character or 2. cut a little bit of everyone else's time. This is much more complicated than it appears at first glance as a lot of the game time is somewhat static and adding pieces for a cohort tend to just get added and nothing is removed as it tends to be important. I'd like to think all GM's make sure their games are sufficiently optimized to avoid sections of games that have no meaning. This, defacto, tends to leads to #2 in the vast majority of cases.
Hopefully that is clear enough, as it took me quite a bit longer to get this out than I expected and I'm not sure if I explained myself well or not. Let me know.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jan 5, 2018 12:11:35 GMT -6
See, it took me so long to write out my thoughts Rigil already posted an hour before I finished typing... ugh.... This is my current thinking based on discussions/debates with Giger (who decided he didn't want to work so he wandered down to my office to chat): Leadership, in the context of this campaign, is potentially redundant (since the characters, as Leaders in their nation, already sort of have the feat built in) so the GM should just disallow it. We already have followers (standing army and all that) so that part is not an issue and our existing cohorts (Sir Casimir and Liliya) can simply become NPCs that the GM can use however he wishes. Those characters simply won't adventure with use at all (unless appropriate according to the GM). The downside to that is that we're still down a dedicate roguely type, but I suppose if one becomes necessary, we could just hire one. Yeah, there is definitely some "suspension of disbelief" issues going on in my head in general with this campaign. Such as the classic Star Trek problem: "Why are the heads of state/ship going out on adventures where death should be a real possibility?" and, why would royalty need to "hire" people? "Hey - you there, rogue-man, follow your king/queen/priest/priestess/etc. it is for the glory of your kingdom/god/alignment!" I feel handwaving these things does some disservice to y'all and would like ideas for how to make things work better, without breaking the game entirely. Also, as this is kind of a "unique" campaign in that y'all are a bunch of adventurers who are establishing a kingdom, I want it to feel different. It shouldn't be I"m an adventurer, and oh, there is this kingdom I rule I guess" - I am trying to bring the kingdom issues more forward in this next chapter and really make y'all feel like there is much to be done outside of just adventuring and give you situations hopefully that you haven't seen in some time if at all due to the nature of politics, city/kingdom building, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jan 5, 2018 12:31:19 GMT -6
Misc notes: - Cohort is really no different than Animal Companion as far as that goes (which isn't an argument to keep them—just saying)
- What if the "cohort" was the ruler instead of the sidekick?—solves the king/captain-goes-adventuring issue
But to reiterate my real point—if the campaign features followers, hangers-on, staff, etc., then there's no need for a Feat in the first place, and therefore, no problem.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 5, 2018 12:41:29 GMT -6
Yeah, there is definitely some "suspension of disbelief" issues going on in my head in general with this campaign. Such as the classic Star Trek problem: "Why are the heads of state/ship going out on adventures where death should be a real possibility?" and, why would royalty need to "hire" people? "Hey - you there, rogue-man, follow your king/queen/priest/priestess/etc. it is for the glory of your kingdom/god/alignment!" I feel handwaving these things does some disservice to y'all and would like ideas for how to make things work better, without breaking the game entirely. Well, to be fair, medieval heads of state went out adventuring all the time. First thing that comes to mind is all of the kings who went off to Crusade (especially Third Crusade - King Richard of England, King Philip of France, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick.) So there is definitely a historical precedence for us to venture out and about. Unfortunately, those kings invariably had a big retinue accompanying them (which lends credence to the whole Leadership feat & followers.) Modern heads of state wouldn't do this, sure, but a medieval equivalent? Oh, yeah. All the fricking time. Hell, it's how a lot of them end up dead! (See King Richard the Lion-Hearted of England who died while on campaign in France.) Interested to see where you go ... Misc notes: What if the "cohort" was the ruler instead of the "follower"?—solves the king/captain-goes-adventuring issue Negates the purpose of the feat which is to add a NPC who accompanies the PC. Which is why I then proposed we just exclude the feat here if it's problematic.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jan 5, 2018 13:14:51 GMT -6
Cohort is really no different than Animal Companion as far as that goes (which isn't an argument to keep them—just saying) True to a point - I typically don't worry about making anything special for the animal companions and they tend to be non-participatory out of combat. It isn't like the wolf is going to become a diplomat or thief or whatever. I think if I was running them right, Walker would have to make checks or something each time he wanted Whisper to do something, which isn't really true of cohorts - and obviously cohorts are given PC classes, etc. Modern heads of state wouldn't do this, sure, but a medieval equivalent? Oh, yeah. All the fricking time. Hell, it's how a lot of them end up dead! (See King Richard the Lion-Hearted of England who died while on campaign in France.) Well, that's good to know. I'm kinda surprised, seems like a quick way to end up dead, which is probably why it fell out of favor. I guess that puts to bed one concern I had about the campaign. Which is why I then proposed we just exclude the feat here if it's problematic. Here's the thing - I really like that they add a unique NPC and all the good stuff of storytelling they give y'all. That stuff is golden! I love the idea of leadership. It is all kinds of cool... it is just the implementation of it breaks a lot of stuff I don't know how to fix.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jan 5, 2018 13:31:00 GMT -6
Here's the thing - I really like that they add a unique NPC and all the good stuff of storytelling they give y'all. That stuff is golden! I love the idea of leadership. It is all kinds of cool... it is just the implementation of it breaks a lot of stuff I don't know how to fix. Why don't we just have everyone that wants one create a "sidekick/cohort" character at however-many-levels below the party-level, and include them. They go when they're needed, they stay when they're not, at the GM's whim. All the good, none…er, much less of the bad. It's a campaign feature, and it works the way the GM says it works. Walays doesn't really need one, though.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jan 5, 2018 13:34:41 GMT -6
Hmm…
Could go with a "one Party ride-along at a time" rule
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jan 5, 2018 15:22:50 GMT -6
How do Rigil and Labrat feel about Leadership with a 10 point buy? Would you still keep the feat?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 5, 2018 15:33:21 GMT -6
Probably not. That would make a really weak NPC who would be more of a hindrance in combat than an advantage.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jan 5, 2018 15:49:56 GMT -6
15?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 5, 2018 15:58:14 GMT -6
Would have to play with it to see. I think I just used the standard array, which was 15, 14, 13, 12, 10 and 8 which I think is around there?
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jan 5, 2018 16:11:18 GMT -6
Standard array is 15 point buy
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jan 6, 2018 12:44:24 GMT -6
Sir Casimir is already built with a 15 point buy, so I am cool with that. But really, I kind of like the idea of everyone having their own cohort of sorts that we can use if needed. That way everyone can make at least one "custom" NOV if they choose to do so
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jan 7, 2018 14:02:16 GMT -6
After much thought, I have decided that Leadership will not be allowed. Any cohorts or followers will come from roleplay and not from a feat. A special thanks to Rigil and Labrat for putting up with my indecision and being so kind about not demanding the feat remain in
As Kingmaker is all about establishing a burgeoning kingdom and setting down roots - if any of you feel like starting to build relationships, find reeves, build a business, and/or anything else let me know.
I will be taking Liliya and Casimir and introducing them into the game for Andrei and Tess.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 7, 2018 14:15:59 GMT -6
Works for me.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jan 8, 2018 9:33:48 GMT -6
Well I for one am very upset with this decision
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 8, 2018 21:08:53 GMT -6
Modern heads of state wouldn't do this, sure, but a medieval equivalent? Oh, yeah. All the fricking time. Hell, it's how a lot of them end up dead! (See King Richard the Lion-Hearted of England who died while on campaign in France.) Well, that's good to know. I'm kinda surprised, seems like a quick way to end up dead, which is probably why it fell out of favor. I guess that puts to bed one concern I had about the campaign. FWIW, even though the issue is resolved, found this which is interesting:
|
|