The Gaming Den

Koumei wrote:No you dumbfuck, you're the one saying it never works and always ruins the game. I fucking said it has the potential to ruin things, but won't automatically do so every time: I can count five D&D games I've played (three with Tome stuff) where Leadership (or whatever) was used, and it caused problems in zero of them. So we have evidence that it sometimes ruins games and evidence that it doesn't always do so. I stated it sometimes but not always does, and you said it's badwrong and stupid to include and never should have existed. So you're stupid and wrong.

So there is actually debate about Leadership being stupid. You being stupid, on the other hand, is pretty much agreed upon, whether on this thread or others.

No, you really didn't. We can go back to your damn post and look at where you said it causes problems:

Not really. The more players in the game, the more annoying it is, and it certainly has the potential to be problematic anyway (especially if you let people have multiple cohorts with them at the same time) but it's not that big a deal depending on the set-up. I've yet to see a game where that turned out badly.

This is where you seem to imply that the feat's problems lie in too much time taken up at the table (more players problem, multiple cohorts problem) and totally ignore the fact that said cohorts could just sit in the back and watch the fight while eating popcorn Battle of Bull Run style because they're already done all the useful things that they need to do.

And the fact that you have evidence that these games you played in totally can use Leadership and that makes it OK is sort of the same way I can say that wizards can relegate themselves to magic missile, thus coming on par with the monk, and so it's totally OK to slap the wizard and the monk in the same book if you want monk-level balance. Basically what I'm saying is your argument is dumb, and you should feel dumb for making it.

Just quoting this to remind people how the goalposts were shifted such that the argument is now somehow supposed to be about defending my "central balance hub" as opposed to being about what the tomes actually hands out and how those things interact/compare with the weeaboo classes.

What... I just... what. So our argument goes like this (ignoring the Koumei parts):

ME: Cohorts in leadership are broken. That's why leadership feats don't really grant cohorts.
YOU: Look at these feats that grant cohorts, it must be OK.
ME: One of those feats doesn't work the way you intended, one of them has a big fat disclaimer saying "NO ACTUAL BALANCE POINT POSSIBLE FOR THIS FEAT", and yes, the other one works the way you intend. But also look at this thread with complaints about that feat being broken.
YOU: Yeah but look at this feat where it gives you a cohort, so it must be OK.
ME: Yes, but like I said that has a "NO ACTUAL BALANCE POINT POSSIBLE FOR THIS FEAT" disclaimer, and is from a sourcebook containing multiple broken parts. Saying the feat is OK because it comes from that source is not a good argument. Like I said.
YOU: Wow goalpost shifting much? SO DUMB.

I said the same thing about Command the first time as I did the second, and I have said the same things about Leadership every time. Cohorts are broken. If you don't have a limiter on cohorts, they can be very broken. If you have a feat that can be broken very easily, it is not "kosher". Using induction through an authority as your argument is bad because your chosen authority is not a good authority. Jesus Christ this is easy stuff, why are you confused?

Koumei, you are being an idiot again.

I mean, You Lost Me is totally wrong when he says the Tomes oppose Leadership, because even though every person on this forum has to know Leadership is brokenly too fucking good times infinity, there is actually like fuck all evidence of that in the Tomes, since there are like 3 Leadership feats, Several classes that get Leadership as a bonus feat, several other classes that get CR-2 creatures of one kind or another as class features, and Frank made like 6 more Leadership feats a month ago because apparently he thought there wasn't enough Leadership to go around.

That said, Koumei, you are also totally in the wrong. Look specifically at what people's actual complaints about Leadership balance are. Every knows it is more powerful than any other feat, makes the entire CR system a joke, and makes all combat resort to Mary Sue "I declare victory."

We also all know that you personally don't actually pay attention in combat, and think the ideal way to resolve combat is to mary sue declare yourself the victor while never ever being challenged at all.

This is one of those "Koumei wants things that are fundamentally incompatible to what everyone else wants from D&D" things.

A Feat that said "You instantly clone yourself seventy times, and gain 13 levels in whatever classes you want, but stay the same level for the purposes of what CR you face" would also not cause any problems for you. But it would cause problems for literally everyone else.

Kaelik wrote: This is one of those "Koumei wants things that are fundamentally incompatible to what everyone else wants from D&D" things.

Except for all the people who like gaming with me. Whereas you have trouble getting a game that goes for more than one session. Here's my theory: you're just a complete [EDITED].

Koumei wrote:

Kaelik wrote: This is one of those "Koumei wants things that are fundamentally incompatible to what everyone else wants from D&D" things.

Except for all the people who like gaming with me. Whereas you have trouble getting a game that goes for more than one session. Here's my theory: you're just a complete [EDITED].

Koumei, this isn't even new territory. You yourself admitted this previously.

I'm not sure why you have a shot at my gaming habits though, my games don't exist because I don't have a lot of free time because of law school and a job. I'm sure if I were unemployed I could find the time.

What I have said previously is that combat isn't interesting and it's good when the fighting is fast, and limited to about one fight per session. And when that combat happens, if I'm a player then I fully intend on winning that by doing all the work beforehand. So not by just walking in with a bullshit +10K to everything, but by making the character effectively, and by trying to find out what we'll be up against and planning for that.

That is not the same as the strawman argument you and others have made.

And seriously, I think the "Doesn't like much combat" is the only big difference from most - if what I wanted was actually very different from what other players want, I wouldn't have such ease in getting into games, being invited into games, and getting players for games I offer to run. Or being told by players I'm going to run a game for them.

Note that this is while employed, currently. Whereas even previously you would try to play/run a game and noted that games tend to only run 3-4 sessions, implying it was out of your control. The evidence suggests it's not inherent to gaming, but maybe people just don't like gaming with you. I wouldn't blame them.

From my experience, Leadership has not broken the game. It has done the following:
[*]Let people shore up some of their weaknesses in the sense of "I play a low-skill fighting man, my buddy here has skills so I can keep doing stuff when we're investigating, socialising and all that."
[*]Shore up weaknesses of the party in general (such as "We could do with a healer of some kind" "But playing as a healer is lame" "Fine, someone can take a pet healer")
[*]Slowed combat time down similarly to how an additional player would, but without another actual player there to make the decisions while everyone else does, so a bit worse. Not to the same extent as "a player wandering off to take a piss" or "a player having a few drinks" though.

Although I will admit that the cohorts I've seen are rarely power multipliers - the closest was a Sorc that could cast Mass Snake's Swiftness to give the party Immediate Action attacks. But not "a pet Cleric who piles all the good buffs on me and puts my numbers through the roof." Maybe that's the problem, in which case "banning Buffy the vampire Buffer as a cohortcharacter of any kind" is a perfectly reasonable solution. Hell, there are those who think the whole "casting buffs at all" concept needs to go, so that's arguably just the symptom of a bigger issue.

Koumei wrote:Whereas even previously you would try to play/run a game and noted that games tend to only run 3-4 sessions, implying it was out of your control. The evidence suggests it's not inherent to gaming, but maybe people just don't like gaming with you. I wouldn't blame them.

For someone who doesn't know fuck all about me you seem to be really keen on knowing why exactly I don't usually game much.

First off, I've never been unemployed, so even previously I also had a job, and friends which distract a certain amount from gaming. Second off, I'm pretty sure you are getting your information from a faulty memory. Most of my games run either many sessions or 1-2. When things fall apart because people are busy, it becomes clear pretty quickly.

But sure, keep insulting me because you don't like combat in D&D and prefer to just /win. You've admitted it yourself, so I'm not sure why you are being overly dickish about it.

I miss the red box leadership rules for 10th level. Those were fun.
All this, I use leadership to have a level-2 backpack caster just seems lame. Cohorts should be things like men at arms, sages, seneschal. Maybe the occasional court alchemist.

Kaelik wrote: I mean, You Lost Me is totally wrong when he says the Tomes oppose Leadership, because even though every person on this forum has to know Leadership is brokenly too fucking good times infinity, there is actually like fuck all evidence of that in the Tomes, since there are like 3 Leadership feats, Several classes that get Leadership as a bonus feat, several other classes that get CR-2 creatures of one kind or another as class features, and Frank made like 6 more Leadership feats a month ago because apparently he thought there wasn't enough Leadership to go around.

This. YLM said that the tome leadership feats don't appear to give cohorts when in fact they do appear to give cohorts. My position seriously begins and ends with the notion that the tome rules support cohorts. Which, of course, isn't even a fucking value judgement. I'm sure plenty of people ignore the "is Skeletor" prestige class and the Leadership feats but that's a different position from implying that they don't exist or aren't a balance consideration. The fact that so many people stridently think they should be ignored implies that they're a serious balance consideration indeed. The rest of YLM's tangent is basically assaulting windmills.

It's worth noting that at no point do most of the Tome leadership feats (that's everything from the Necromantic ones up to and including Army of Demons) actually give you equipment for your cohort, which takes a good deal of the backpack caster out of the picture. This is in stark contrast to core Leadership.

Whipstitch wrote:This. YLM said that the tome leadership feats don't appear to give cohorts when in fact they do appear to give cohorts. My position seriously begins and ends with the notion that the tome rules support cohorts. Which, of course, isn't even a fucking value judgement. I'm sure plenty of people ignore the "is Skeletor" prestige class and the Leadership feats but that's a different position from implying that they don't exist or aren't a balance consideration. The fact that so many people stridently think they should be ignored implies that they're a serious balance consideration indeed. The rest of YLM's tangent is basically assaulting windmills.

Like I said, only 50% actually provide cohorts, 1 is monster-only, and one is tagged with "This is not supportable in games".

This is the third time, and it's the argument that proves my point strongly. Cohorts exist in the game the way an immediate action RTA action denial exists, but being supported is another thing.

Keep up the straw though.

Does this guy always post like this? Serious question.

I have no idea, but a lot more than 50% provide cohorts.

Koumei wrote:

Kaelik wrote: This is one of those "Koumei wants things that are fundamentally incompatible to what everyone else wants from D&D" things.

Except for all the people who like gaming with me. Whereas you have trouble getting a game that goes for more than one session. Here's my theory: you're just a complete [EDITED].

I support that theory actually.

I just went through Command (Races of War), and ToV feats. If there are other feats, please show them to me. But as far as I see, there are 5 from ToV and 1 from RoW for 6 total. 3 of those give cohorts.

Whipstitch wrote:Does this guy always post like this? Serious question.

Just quoting this to remind people how the argument has shifted such that the only assertion being made is that people who disagree with him must be very stupid because he is right and god people who prove him wrong must be very stupid.

Off the top of my head, Command, Leadership, Lord of Death, Master of Terror and Monster Rancher give cohorts, although Lord of Death and Monster Rancher stipulate that they must be intelligent undead or monstrous creatures respectively.

Surgo wrote:It's worth noting that at no point do most of the Tome leadership feats (that's everything from the Necromantic ones up to and including Army of Demons) actually give you equipment for your cohort, which takes a good deal of the backpack caster out of the picture. This is in stark contrast to core Leadership.

But caster needs equipment the least?
And if you are playing Tome, chances are high you use the Wish economy and your cohorts have every <15.000 Gold item they want.

And then there is the option of an cohort as inteligent magic item (sorcerer only, i think).

Whipstitch wrote:Off the top of my head, Command, Leadership, Lord of Death, Master of Terror and Monster Rancher give cohorts, although Lord of Death and Monster Rancher stipulate that they must be intelligent undead or monstrous creatures respectively.

We are talking about the tomes, right? The homebrew material for D&D made specifically from Tome of Necromancy, Races of War, Dungeonomicon, etc., right? Like, that material doesn't include feats like Leadership (DMG) or Master of Terror (Iameki) because those aren't part of the tomes? Sort of the way we aren't including every D&D Wiki cohort-granting feat in the game, and we're ignoring stuff like the Oriental Adventures book?

And thus you now have Command, Lord of Death, and Monster Rancher. Congratulations. Out of six feats, there are indeed three granting cohorts.

You Lost Me, what are the six Leadership feats you count as real Tome feats?

Frankly, I don't count the "Frank made 5 feats two weeks ago" as more part of the Tomes than the ones Imakei made 5 years ago, but if you are going to talk about how the Tomes don't support cohorts, please tell us which feats you think "count."

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if in my senility I included a couple from that compilation pdf that included a whole bunch of stuff from people other than Frank and K. TBH though, I still consider your fascination with the number of feats that provide cohort functionality to be irrelevant as long as that number isn't zero and the feats included don't have strict prerequisites.

Other Leadership feats (without the tag, but still provide cohorts) include Path of Blood, Wrappings of the Ages, A Feast Unknown, and maybe a couple other necromantic feats.

Those other leadership feats made two weeks ago -- where are these? I searched and I found ones made two years ago for the Soulborn etc, but nothing more recent.

It wasn't actually two weeks ago, it was back in 2009. Iameki's was 2008. I think that was hyperbole on Kaelik's part.

My ruling for tome feats was any feat that was included in one of the Tome of X books or Races of War and any feat in a thread titled [Tome of X]. I would have also cut out feats without any criticism or feats that were crappy. Like, the Favored Souls are tome classes, but the bunch of random racial feats of insanely varying power powers and sigma's demon/angel/etc. classes were not.

The Barbarian and the Knight both get Command as a bonus Feat. Command specifically calls out that you get followers at level 1 and a Cohort at level 6.

If you want proof the Tome's support the includion of Leadership, that's pretty solid evidence. However, I don't see what relevance it has to whether Leadership is balanced with other feats.

...You Lost Me wrote:It wasn't actually two weeks ago, it was back in 2009. Iameki's was 2008. I think that was hyperbole on Kaelik's part.

My ruling for tome feats was any feat that was included in one of the Tome of X books or Races of War and any feat in a thread titled [Tome of X]. I would have also cut out feats without any criticism or feats that were crappy. Like, the Favored Souls are tome classes, but the bunch of random racial feats of insanely varying power powers and sigma's demon/angel/etc. classes were not.

1) Actually that was a mistake, not hyperbole, I never saw those the first time around, so when Prak necroed the thread I thought they were new as of then.

2) Your definition is stupid. If you are allowing feats in threads that read [Tome of X] then you have to include Imakei's Leadership feats too.

So my definition of tome should be "anything of wizard-level balance point"?

Technically we've been calling it "Very High" nowadays instead