PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Leadership...huh...what is it good for?



jiriku
2009-10-09, 04:51 PM
I've seen many posters knock the Leadership feat as overpowered/broken/just a bad idea. I'm a little confused about this attitude.

I have played in games where DMs who didn't want extra work told me to stat up my own cohort and followers and manage them myself when I took leadership. Hey, I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, so I built optimized characters, ran my cohort as a second PC, and doubled the total power under my control. This was definitely broken.

But it wasn't RAW.

RAW instructs the DM to design the cohort and followers, and to run them as NPCs. A player doesn't get to choose what classes his cohort takes or what feats it chooses or where it places its skill or ability points, and the DM is the arbiter of what a cohort will or will not do.

Now, I've run games in which my players took leadership at my encouragement. I built their cohorts and defined what sort of followers were available. I ran the cohorts as NPCs, per RAW. My players were very pleased with the value of their feat slot, but the cohorts never overshadowed their masters and I never allowed them to make the other players who hadn't taken leadership feel insignificant.

So for those of you who think the feat has issues, what's your perspective?

Eldariel
2009-10-09, 04:54 PM
You get to choose what kind of a cohort you attract, so yes, you in effect get to choose what you get. Relevant passage:

"A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment."

Godskook
2009-10-09, 04:57 PM
RAW instructs the DM to design the cohort and followers, and to run them as NPCs. A player doesn't get to choose what classes his cohort takes or what feats it chooses or where it places its skill or ability points, and the DM is the arbiter of what a cohort will or will not do.

Link please?

SparkMandriller
2009-10-09, 04:59 PM
A feat which lets you get a cohort that may or may not be good, depending on how your DM feels, and may or may not be helpful, depending on how your DM feels, doesn't really sound like too much of a good idea to me.

Zaydos
2009-10-09, 04:59 PM
I like the idea of PCs gaining cohorts but I want them to put RP work into it. For that reason I normally don't allow Leadership. If I did I'd probably let the PCs stat out the cohorts themselves, but that's because they're fairly new and so far fail at optimization without having me design their characters or help extensively. Mostly it's the RP factor, although to a point I think a decently made Lv -2 character should be a quite strong investment for a feat. I've never actually had a player who used it (I used it once, they let me build the character too but I was new and it wasn't optimized and it still was very useful), though, so I can't really comment on power.

Innis Cabal
2009-10-09, 05:01 PM
You get to choose what kind of a cohort you attract, so yes, you in effect get to choose what you get. Relevant passage:

"A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment."

You don't get to choose. You can try to attract them. You can pick what you try to get. Dosn't mean your going to get it. Can is a mighty word.

There is also the clause that the DM can just say NO. And thats RAW

oxybe
2009-10-09, 05:03 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#leadership

relevant passage:

Cohort Level

The character can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of a character’s Leadership score, he can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than himself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level. A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment. The cohort’s alignment may not be opposed to the leader’s alignment on either the law-vs-chaos or good-vs-evil axis, and the leader takes a Leadership penalty if he recruits a cohort of an alignment different from his own.

Ehra
2009-10-09, 05:09 PM
You get to choose what kind of a cohort you attract, so yes, you in effect get to choose what you get. Relevant passage:

"A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment."

I think the key word in that quote is "can try."


A feat which lets you get a cohort that may or may not be good, depending on how your DM feels, and may or may not be helpful, depending on how your DM feels, doesn't really sound like too much of a good idea to me.

How is that different from pretty much everything else in DnD?

Godskook
2009-10-09, 05:10 PM
There is also the clause that the DM can just say NO. And thats RAW

Where is it? I've yet to find any clauses that actually say anything like 'the DM stats up the cohort' or 'DM may nix player's desired cohort choice'. Sure, there's rule 0, but that applies to everything.

oxybe
2009-10-09, 05:19 PM
oddly enough the player can also say no to the DM's suggested cohort.

"sorry but Ted the Bold refuses John Cohortington's services."

i would imagine the player have the ability to choose who he hangs out with, right?

SparkMandriller
2009-10-09, 05:35 PM
How is that different from pretty much everything else in DnD?

Every other feat you at least know what you're getting. If the DM decides everything about your cohort, you don't. Maybe it'll be good, maybe it'll be worthless! Like a gameshow or somethin'. :/

Eldariel
2009-10-09, 05:36 PM
There is also the clause that the DM can just say NO. And thats RAW

It's always RAW; doesn't matter whether it's stated or not. It's frankly completely trivial to every question at hands. Of course DM can ban or control anything, but what does that tell about any balance questions or anything else? It's just not something to consider here.


And the related issues of players not wanting DM's cohorts and DM not giving players the cohorts they want...well, that just highlights how ridiculous a feat Leadership is. Leadership is something that is a result of your roleplay and Charisma, not a friggin' feat.

PinkysBrain
2009-10-09, 05:49 PM
I've seen many posters knock the Leadership feat as overpowered/broken/just a bad idea. I'm a little confused about this attitude.
The problem with leadership is that regardless of how poor your cohort is constructed it's still in no proportion to a feat slot ... putting it in the PHB as if it was a normal feat option was a stupid idea. It's like putting artifacts in the PHB and saying that they will cost 1 gp to buy if the DM makes them available in the campaign.

AzazelSephiroth
2009-10-09, 06:10 PM
My take on the Leadership feat, and many of my friends share this opinion, is that it can be used to break a game. Just like allowing my players to play a wizard can allow them to kill everything with 100 miles of there golem/dominated/undead army.:smallsmile:
The feat is both an expression of your character's notoriety and his willingness to actually lead people. Many of my characters have striven for nobility or land as a reward for quests well done and yet I rarely took leadership because I rarely wanted to deal with the hassel of having an "army" tagging along. If I becam Lord So and So, I generally protected my lands and my serfs, peasants or whatever never really came into game.
If a character takes leadership it means they have decided to take on that responsibility and are putting the effort forth in commanding and providing for his X number of followers and his super general aka Mr/Mrs Cohort. I have never found a DM who would completely discount my desire for a paticular Cohort and likewise I have never found a Player who had to have complete control over their followers. On the other note however, there is a strong RP element as well for the PC cannot realisticly take leadership with out some fame and prestige (hence the 6th level requirement.)
I know this was a long response for my simple answer but I like the idea of the Leadership feat. I believe it has the potential to reward good RPers and can even help small party groups. On the other hand I also recognize that according to RAW the DM does control all said NPCs and so some of my choices may get vetoed. Give and take in any game. If the DM lets me have a Redeemed Succubus Paladin who dual-weilds flaming holy swords...:smallbiggrin: well they asked for it and I certainly hope my fellow players are doing equaly amazing feats.
Can be very cool and useful, potential for abuse as with alot of feats RAW and not.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-09, 07:18 PM
The feat is both an expression of your character's notoriety and his willingness to actually lead people. Many of my characters have striven for nobility or land as a reward for quests well done and yet I rarely took leadership because I rarely wanted to deal with the hassel of having an "army" tagging along.

Then don't bring the followers. Just the Cohort.
I know I never use the follower part.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 07:40 PM
I like the idea of PCs gaining cohorts but I want them to put RP work into it. For that reason I normally don't allow Leadership. If I did I'd probably let the PCs stat out the cohorts themselves, but that's because they're fairly new and so far fail at optimization without having me design their characters or help extensively. Mostly it's the RP factor, although to a point I think a decently made Lv -2 character should be a quite strong investment for a feat. I've never actually had a player who used it (I used it once, they let me build the character too but I was new and it wasn't optimized and it still was very useful), though, so I can't really comment on power.

I agree you should get cohorts in game... why a feat? what you can NOT hire someone without a feat? you cannot get friends without a feat? you can just get hundreds of followers with nothing but a feat? that feat is just retarded.

If your PC wants to get some friends / cohorts, well, go get some... make a quest out of it. Start a business, a crime organization, take over a kingdom, get a military rank... do SOMETHING... don't just take a feat at level up.

Akal Saris
2009-10-09, 08:24 PM
I believe the 3.0 DMG also had different instructions on Leadership that were omitted in 3.5 - followers could only be experts, commoners, or warriors, and there might have been something about who creates the cohort as well.

jiriku
2009-10-09, 10:29 PM
I agree you should get cohorts in game... why a feat? what you can NOT hire someone without a feat? you cannot get friends without a feat? you can just get hundreds of followers with nothing but a feat? that feat is just retarded.

If your PC wants to get some friends / cohorts, well, go get some... make a quest out of it. Start a business, a crime organization, take over a kingdom, get a military rank... do SOMETHING... don't just take a feat at level up.

[scholarly lecture mode]
I may be showing my age here, but remember in 1st edition, followers were a CLASS FEATURE that all classes received between 9th-11th level. Cohorts weren't a class feature, but the DMG contained complex rules describing fixed amounts of WBL you HAD to offer an NPC before you could entice them to become your cohort.

Thus, having a castle garrison/wizard's cabal/thieves' guild/religious following was a standard part of your class's power and a reward for leveling. Of course, some players had no interest in managing a group of NPCs and passed on the opportunity. They received nothing in return for their sacrifice, and their characters were permanently less powerful than those who accepted their followers.

From one perspective, 3rd edition is a bold step forward. You now receive your cohort (and eventually your followers) beginning at 6th level (thus getting players the good sooner, since not all campaigns run much past 11th level), and if you choose not to acquire followers...you get A FEAT in return to spend on whatever you wish.

So from this perspective, the Leadership feat is not an attempt to create a feat out of something that should be pure RP. It is an attempt at taking something that every class gets by default and create an alternate class feature (feat slot) so that people who don't want followers can get something else of value instead.

And if Leadership > feat slot in your mind, remember where 3rd edition was coming from - feats were the big new thing that turned class features into modular building blocks you could mix and match to your taste (such as track and item creation, which were class features in previous editions). Balance issues arose because the designers made mistakes in judging the relative value of class features.
[/scholarly lecture mode]

So the objections to Leadership I'm getting so far is that it unfairly limits you (you should be able to get as many followers as your RP will allow) and that it gives too much power to the DM (who may give your something good or something not so good).

Is that about it?

Edit: It's off-topic, but Starbuck, GITP opened my eyes to the power of first-level followers! I take mine with me wherever I go, and I sleep *well* at night knowing that I have 2-3 1st level experts with +10 Spot checks to watch over me while I sleep. Plus, as a red wizard, I appreciate the spell levels my apprentices give me during circle magic, and I can also call on a master blacksmith, alchemist, forger, animal handler, etc, etc, etc, all with a +10 or better bonus to their primary skill.

BobVosh
2009-10-10, 12:02 AM
1st/2ed were hilarious in the way it was written. The second you ding hundred or so people came from...somewhere. And then build you a stronghold. Always just found that weird.

As for leadership: it can be amazingly powerful. Or worthless. Depends on how it is done. Just a poorly thought out feature. Humorously enough in one of my games we all have leadership to pilot our fleet. 9 ships and growing stronger.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-10-10, 12:16 AM
1st/2ed were hilarious in the way it was written. The second you ding hundred or so people came from...somewhere. And then build you a stronghold. Always just found that weird.

As for leadership: it can be amazingly powerful. Or worthless. Depends on how it is done. Just a poorly thought out feature. Humorously enough in one of my games we all have leadership to pilot our fleet. 9 ships and growing stronger.

I believe but I'm not sure you had to have some one train you or had some amount of down time to acquire the new level.
Also they didn't really tumble out of no where. it stated that they would trickle in.

I love leadership but alot of my players don't use it because they don't like to micro manage.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-10, 12:21 AM
The real abuse in Leadership is when all your Followers are 1st and 2nd level Sorcerers, who all use Circle Magic and Cooperative Magic to boost your Spell DC's into the stratosphere. Well, that and expending spell slots to mitigate the spellcraft DC on epic spells...

OracleofWuffing
2009-10-10, 12:27 AM
The real abuse in Leadership is when all your Followers are 1st and 2nd level Sorcerers, who all use Circle Magic and Cooperative Magic to boost your Spell DC's into the stratosphere. Well, that and expending spell slots to mitigate the spellcraft DC on epic spells...
Don't forget when your cohort reaches level 6 and takes leadership to augment these shenanigans before the DM brings on the banhammer twenty years back. 'Sup dawg, I heard you like something or other so I did stuff.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-10, 12:35 AM
Don't forget when your cohort reaches level 6 and takes leadership to augment these shenanigans before the DM brings on the banhammer twenty years back. 'Sup dawg, I heard you like something or other so I did stuff.

"Sup dawg, I heard you like Followers. So when yer Cohort level 6, we put Leadership on your Leadership so your Followers can have Followers"

Yea... tiered systems are historically accurate, but can lead to army-level sized minion sheets.

But then what you do with all those minions is the telling point. Increasing the DC of your spells to over 100 with a single feat? That's pretty darn fun.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-10, 01:16 AM
But it's okay, because then your DM breaks out the evil Hammer of Justice, and pits you against a "CR 15" Encounter of a 22HD Black Dragon with Leadership and Epic Leadership, with an Epic Sorcerer as his Cohort.

Also, 400 1st level Kobold Sorcerers to mitigate DC. And to magic missile spam you if you ever enter his lair. (And then all his Cohorts and Cohorts Cohorts and Followers over level 6 all take Leadership.)

Ravens_cry
2009-10-10, 01:27 AM
Hey, it could be fun, if you use a fantasy war games system for the large scale battle parts. If all the players don't mind the game going that way it could get pretty epic.:smallamused:

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-10, 02:58 AM
But it's okay, because then your DM breaks out the evil Hammer of Justice, and pits you against a "CR 15" Encounter of a 22HD Black Dragon with Leadership and Epic Leadership, with an Epic Sorcerer as his Cohort.

Also, 400 1st level Kobold Sorcerers to mitigate DC. And to magic missile spam you if you ever enter his lair. (And then all his Cohorts and Cohorts Cohorts and Followers over level 6 all take Leadership.)

A simple Shield spell negates all the Magic Missile spam...
the dragon, on the other hand, doesn't need leadership or epic leadership, because he's an NPC, an the 'encounter' can have whatever the GM would like to have.

Also, all his forces would avail him naught, with your Disintegrate Fort Save DC 100+...

Indon
2009-10-10, 10:15 AM
Absolutely nothin'?*

You know, I disagree. I think Leadership makes for a good guideline for establishing a band of followers (with a trusty lieutenant). If a DM wants to run followers/cohorts with pure RP, Leadership still provides a fairly good guideline as to how many followers someone should be able to gather at any given level (provided the assumption that prestige increases with level, and so on).

And in and of itself, it's frankly no more exploitable than spellcasting in general. If you could gain the Polymorph spell as an SLA for a feat, it'd be comparable to Leadership, and that's just one of the potent spells in the game.

So if you're playing a game in which Polymorph is cast seriously, why not Leadership?

*-Say it again now!

Melamoto
2009-10-10, 10:53 AM
A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment.

The way it works is that everything is chosen by the DM, but you can make preferences. These preferences also only apply to race, class, and alignment, not feats, skills, or items. You can give the Cohort equipment, but that's coming out of your WBL; and you can help him make his choice of build, but only help.

So, for example, you could say you wanted a specific type of creature, an alignment, and what archetype they were. But the DM would still only have to base if on those guidelines. A Lawful Good Elven Paladin request could still turn out as a Neutral Good Half-Elf Fighter.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-10, 10:57 AM
The way it works is that everything is chosen by the DM, but you can make preferences. These preferences also only apply to race, class, and alignment, not feats, skills, or items. You can give the Cohort equipment, but that's coming out of your WBL; and you can help him make his choice of build, but only help.


I disagree on WPL. NPCs get their own wealth (though usually 1/3rd the PCs), and Cohort should have their own stuff. But I do think there is nothing wrong with giving some of your wealth to the Cohort in addition.

Lamech
2009-10-10, 10:59 AM
A simple Shield spell negates all the Magic Missile spam...
the dragon, on the other hand, doesn't need leadership or epic leadership, because he's an NPC, an the 'encounter' can have whatever the GM would like to have.

Also, all his forces would avail him naught, with your Disintegrate Fort Save DC 100+...

But things that the dragon adds with his own power don't count for CR. Like cohort cause he payed a feat.

Johel
2009-10-10, 11:11 AM
RAW instructs the DM to design the cohort and followers, and to run them as NPCs. A player doesn't get to choose what classes his cohort takes or what feats it chooses or where it places its skill or ability points, and the DM is the arbiter of what a cohort will or will not do.

(....)

So for those of you who think the feat has issues, what's your perspective?

Agree with most posters, here.
Since your cohort is basically your sidekick, you get to choose him.
It's not like you're forced to enlist somebody, after all.
So, if fully roleplayed, you might need some time to find the "perfect" cohort.
But most DM just let you do as you wish...or ban the feat.

The issue is, even followers can help to build something broken.
Let's take a character, 6th level, with 18 Charisma, not-good alignement.
He got 5 followers, all 1st level, and a 4th level cohort.
The followers are all Adepts or Experts.

The Experts will all specialize in different skills and be humans.
They'll all have an minimum of +7 in two skills.
The Adepts will be walking "Cure Wound" potions.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-10, 12:08 PM
A simple Shield spell negates all the Magic Missile spam...
the dragon, on the other hand, doesn't need leadership or epic leadership, because he's an NPC, an the 'encounter' can have whatever the GM would like to have.

Also, all his forces would avail him naught, with your Disintegrate Fort Save DC 100+...

And do you know that you need to have a Shield spell up? How many of your level 14 characters have Shield up 24 hours a day? After all, 400 level 1 Sorcerers +300 level 2 Sorcerers + ect is CR 400ish.

And that's the whole point. You could add an Epic Sorcerer, and that would increase the CR drastically. But if the level 14 party takes on a CR 14 encounter, then you can say "It was only CR 14. Oh what? You think it was too powerful for CR 14? Maybe Leadership is too powerful then?"

tyckspoon
2009-10-10, 12:20 PM
And do you know that you need to have a Shield spell up? How many of your level 14 characters have Shield up 24 hours a day? After all, 400 level 1 Sorcerers is CR 400ish.


CR doesn't stack additively. Every doubling of numbers is supposed to increase CR by 1, so 400 level 1 whatevers is "officially" CR 8-ish. I'm not sure what point you think you're making, however; you've shown one of the many ways the CR system is broken. We already knew that, so.. well done?

Kelpstrand
2009-10-10, 12:37 PM
CR doesn't stack additively. Every doubling of numbers is supposed to increase CR by 1, so 400 level 1 whatevers is "officially" CR 8-ish. I'm not sure what point you think you're making, however; you've shown one of the many ways the CR system is broken. We already knew that, so.. well done?

The point being that Leadership is broken. That should be painfully obvious from the part were I specifically said that was the point.

Zeta Kai
2009-10-10, 12:57 PM
[scholarly lecture mode]

I agree with everything else that you said, but your economics argument is borked. You claim that Leadership as a feat is a good thing because if you don't choose to take Leadership, then you get a feat out of the deal. Win-win.

This is a fallacy. You already had your feat, & you can choose to spend it on Leadership if you want to. Or not.

This is not a plus, from any perspective. It's like saying that you can walking into a store, & there's this awesome item in there that you can buy. And even better, the saleman says "With this item, if you don't buy it, then you get your money, to spend on whatever you want!" Wrong, wrong, wrong. You already had your money, & the option to spend it on something is not a selling point for any particular item that your would wish to buy. At least, not any more of a selling point than for any other purchasable item.

Tallis
2009-10-10, 01:15 PM
1st/2ed were hilarious in the way it was written. The second you ding hundred or so people came from...somewhere. And then build you a stronghold. Always just found that weird.

You have that backwards. You have to build a stronghold to attract the followers.
Also, as mentioned there are training times and costs in 1e (can't remember off hand if they carried over to 2e).

Starbuck_II
2009-10-10, 01:21 PM
You have that backwards. You have to build a stronghold to attract the followers.
Also, as mentioned there are training times and costs in 1e (can't remember off hand if they carried over to 2e).

Not in 2E, I remember it was "ding!" you got followers and a keep. So in 1e you had to build it first?

Godskook
2009-10-10, 01:24 PM
I agree with everything else that you said, but your economics argument is borked. You claim that Leadership as a feat is a good thing because if you don't choose to take Leadership, then you get a feat out of the deal. Win-win.

This is a fallacy. You already had your feat, & you can choose to spend it on Leadership if you want to. Or not.

Re-read what he wrote. You'll find that you're missing important parts of his argument in your retort. In earlier editions, the 'feat' that was spent on leadership was never 'had' and couldn't be spent on anything else.

jiriku
2009-10-10, 01:43 PM
OK. Where I'm coming from with this is that I'm formalizing a lot of my informal house rules and reviewing and rebalancing feats for my homebrew.

I've never had problems with leadership in my games, but I wanted to tap into the tribal knowledge of the community. From the sound of it, the concerns about balancing leadership are concerns that I've already encountered and learned to manage.

I already include a houserule that the cohort's level may never exceed 80% of his master's level, rounded down. This creates a little more space at higher levels, where the difference between, say, a 16th level toon and a 14th level toon is quite small.

I think I may also adopt a rule of thumb never to give a player a cohort who is higher tier than he is, just to be sure that the cohort doesn't overshadow his boss. I generally don't have to worry much about optimization affecting balance because I'm far and away the best optimizer in my play group, and the DM gets all the toys. :smalltongue:

dragonfan6490
2009-10-10, 03:12 PM
In my games, should a PC take Leadership, I create the Cohort and role-play them, but my players control them so that it doesn't become a game of DM v. DM.

Deth Muncher
2009-10-10, 04:45 PM
In my games, should a PC take Leadership, I create the Cohort and role-play them, but my players control them so that it doesn't become a game of DM v. DM.

This. In most of the games I've been in that people had cohorts, this is how it went. Example: The last game I was in, I tell the DM I'm thinking about Leadership, he goes "Okay, you'll have one in a session or two." We end up beating a dungeon, and get rewarded by this dragon who we helped free. I get my cohort, a DFA.

Also, thanks to leadership, I was able to rally some troops from a mercenary guild I was a part of: it was handy, since there were some disgustingly hard monsters in that dungeon - Huge Fire Elementals, Pyrohydra...yeah. Having some mooks to soak up some blows was good. And heck, out of the 10 or so I recruited, only a few died, so they all got level ups on their own and got to feel better about themselves.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-10, 04:54 PM
Then don't bring the followers. Just the Cohort.
I know I never use the follower part.

I have a player playing a Spellthief who has Leadership. His cohort is a Cleric, his followers are spellcasters. Guess why?

Zaydos
2009-10-10, 05:14 PM
Not in 2E, I remember it was "ding!" you got followers and a keep. So in 1e you had to build it first?

Even in 2e for a fighter you had to:

To attract the men, the fighter must have a castle or stronghold and sizable manor lands around it.

For clerics and thieves similar rules existed (must be a temple, must found a thieves' guild), and wizards at best could get a few henchmen (2e cohorts) and apprentices to help them (i.e. cohorts). A fighter got 0-level characters (read Commoners) and a single med level fighter (5-7) leader with a unit of 10-30 fighters level 1 or 2; and they didn't respawn if he got them killed taking them into a dungeon he lost them and didn't get them back because that wasn't their job. Clerics who build a temple got 20-200 level 0 warriors (again commoners). Thieves and Rangers got possibly dangerous followers and only thieves and rangers. Only rangers didn't need to build a fortress and take over managing land to get them.

In addition the problem seems to come from spellcasting followers and cohorts to begin with.

To OP: I'd say disallowing high tier cohorts is a good idea, but I'd warn you the Lv 8 Wizard with a Lv 6 Wizard cohort might just outshine the Lv 8 rogue with a Lv 6 barbarian cohort even more than normal. Then again my main reason for not using Leadership is just that I've preferred role-playing it so I'm not the best at balancing them. Although I will say a Lv 18 sorcerer cohort with bronze dragon themed spells will outshine a badly built and utilized Knight 10/weak homebrewed prestige class 10. Then again he enjoyed getting to control said sorcerer in battle.

Violet Octopus
2009-10-10, 05:34 PM
From the feats section in the PHB:
"Your DM has information on what sort of cohort and how many followers you can recruit.
Special: Check with your DM before selecting this feat, and work with your DM to determine an appropriate cohort..."

While you could interpret that as just "the DM reads the DMG, not you, so consult them on what level your cohort would be", but it seems far more likely that it's suggesting you collaborate with the DM to figure out the class/feats/whatever of this cohort. Probably by you creating a wishlist, and the DM making a cohort that takes that into account, as well as power and whether it fits into the campaign.

Johel
2009-10-10, 05:40 PM
I have a player playing a Spellthief who has Leadership. His cohort is a Cleric, his followers are spellcasters. Guess why?

Ok, now, that's a really creative use. :smallsmile:

Small doubt :
I don't know the details of the Spellthief class but wouldn't the player be better off if the cohort and followers casted their spells themselves, rather than him wasting sneak attacks to get the spells ?
It takes him two rounds to steal and cast a single spell, right ?
While the "army" could cast a lot of spells in 1 single round.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-10, 05:48 PM
Ok, now, that's a really creative use. :smallsmile:

Small doubt :
I don't know the details of the Spellthief class but wouldn't the player be better off if the cohort and followers casted their spells themselves, rather than him wasting sneak attacks to get the spells ?
It takes him two rounds to steal and cast a single spell, right ?
While the "army" could cast a lot of spells in 1 single round.

They can cast the same round he steals spells, so he's effectively giving them a 50% increase in casting ability. Besides, IIRC he's using them for other purposes too.

Worira
2009-10-10, 06:31 PM
It's good for war.

GallóglachMaxim
2009-10-10, 06:58 PM
There have to be some ways to use Leadership without it becoming totally ridiculous. The Spellthief with a battery of casters to borrow from that Sinfire Titan mentioned seems like a good one. I've been considering playing an Artificer who delegates the basic crafting jobs to followers, freeing up time and skill points. Making the distinction between a good use and a game breaking use is the DM's job, and even if that weren't always the case, the Leadership rules have a reminder of that, and if they don't want to deal with the issue, Leadership doesn't have to be avaliable.

jiriku
2009-10-10, 10:20 PM
Oh there are many good uses. In the last major campaign I ran, one player who got tired of frequent character deaths took Leadership and acquired a stout fighter with impressive Intimidate to be his bodyguard - no more character deaths for him.

Another player who loves githyanki and hates mind flayers acquired a githyanki illithid slayer cohort. She was very effective against her favored enemy, and as she leveled, her dimension door and plane shift psi-like abilities improved the travel capabilities of the whole party.

In my own experience, I've used cohort clerics in parties where no one wanted to play a cleric, and provided the whole party with healing and buffing.

My red wizard uses follower wizards for his circle magic, and gets a nice power boost from that each day.

I've grown very fond of followers with optimized spot and listen checks as guards during the night - since spot and listen aren't class skills for most PC classes, Wedge and Biggs, my 1st-level expert watchmen, are more observant than most of the 11th and 12th level PCs.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-10, 10:23 PM
Agree with most posters, here.
Since your cohort is basically your sidekick, you get to choose him.
It's not like you're forced to enlist somebody, after all.
So, if fully roleplayed, you might need some time to find the "perfect" cohort.
But most DM just let you do as you wish...or ban the feat.

The issue is, even followers can help to build something broken.
Let's take a character, 6th level, with 18 Charisma, not-good alignement.
He got 5 followers, all 1st level, and a 4th level cohort.
The followers are all Adepts or Experts.

The Experts will all specialize in different skills and be humans.
They'll all have an minimum of +7 in two skills.
The Adepts will be walking "Cure Wound" potions.

Marshal10/Exemplar10

You get to add your Cha to other people's skill checks, as well as a bonus from Exemplar.

Attract followers. Commoners, whatever. Your boosts will allow them to make the DC 10 check for Aid Another easily.

Proceed to get an arbitrarily large modifier to whatever skill you desire.

Diplomacy? Intimidate? Handle Animal? Gather Information? It's all open!

Yahzi
2009-10-10, 11:32 PM
So for those of you who think the feat has issues, what's your perspective?
How to make Leadership work:

1) Make it a Fighter only feat.

2) Give it to Fighters for free at 5th level.

3) Remove the cohorts. Only allow the followers.

A wizard gets Fireball and a Fighter gets a handful of first level summons. Sounds pretty even to me. :smallbiggrin:

Dixieboy
2009-10-11, 12:01 AM
Marshal10/Exemplar10

You get to add your Cha to other people's skill checks, as well as a bonus from Exemplar.

Attract followers. Commoners, whatever. Your boosts will allow them to make the DC 10 check for Aid Another easily.

Proceed to get an arbitrarily large modifier to whatever skill you desire.

Diplomacy? Intimidate? Handle Animal? Gather Information? It's all open!

And it totally makes sense too.

One dude with a big sword is scary, but one dude with a big sword and an army is a lot scarier.

MCerberus
2009-10-11, 12:07 AM
From the feats section in the PHB:
"Your DM has information on what sort of cohort and how many followers you can recruit.
Special: Check with your DM before selecting this feat, and work with your DM to determine an appropriate cohort..."

While you could interpret that as just "the DM reads the DMG, not you, so consult them on what level your cohort would be", but it seems far more likely that it's suggesting you collaborate with the DM to figure out the class/feats/whatever of this cohort. Probably by you creating a wishlist, and the DM making a cohort that takes that into account, as well as power and whether it fits into the campaign.

I read that more as "Your DM has the right to not allow this feat in play if he or she so desires. Although any feat could be banned, there is a big giant huge chance they don't want to deal with the potential abuse and headache that comes with this feat."

This also coincides with my personal interpretation of the PrC rules, where a PrC doesn't exist in the campaign until the DM says it does. Permission to prestige is needed to do it. I am the keeper of the cheese gate. None may pass.

Stephen_E
2009-10-11, 07:47 AM
How to make Leadership work:

1) Make it a Fighter only feat.

2) Give it to Fighters for free at 5th level.

3) Remove the cohorts. Only allow the followers.

A wizard gets Fireball and a Fighter gets a handful of first level summons. Sounds pretty even to me. :smallbiggrin:

But what about Paladins using it with their Mounts (and by Houserule Blackguards as well).

It's actually an emiently reasonable feat in a party of 4 or smaller.
Maximum number of leadership feats taken = 5-number of PCs, with High lev Animal Companions/S[ecial Mounts counting to wards the Leadership limit unless they're stacked. i.e. A paladin Special Mount who's also his Leadership Cohort counts for 1. An Animal Companion of a pure, or near pure Druid would also count as "1".

Stephen E

bosssmiley
2009-10-11, 11:34 AM
1st/2ed were hilarious in the way it was written. The second you ding hundred or so people came from...somewhere. And then build you a stronghold. Always just found that weird.

tangential: If you read the actual wording of the rules it said that when a character of 9th level or above settled down and built a stronghold, then he attracted followers to his banner.

(This made perfect sense in the context of the assumed gameworld. A 9th level character was a local big man who attracted followers by virtue of his reputation, wealth (what, you thought "gp grants xp" was a mistake?) and personal prowess. Said character was a guy who could fight and beat the sort of stuff that Hercules went up against; that makes him someone you want on your side in a fight. Heck, in Chainmail seeing a Name level character storming towards you was an instant morale check for 1HD grunts.)

Non-landlord knight errant characters were stuck with recruiting hirelings (who worked for pay) and henchmen (who worked for a cut of the adventuring loot).

Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it's nonsense.

on-topic: 3E Leadership was a botched attempt to replicate TSR D&D's henchmen and followers rules. Unfortunately it was now part of a system that was scaled to model modern superheroic fantasy, rather than old-style medieval fantasy, so it worked poorly at best.

3E: making a mess of things that worked in old D&D since 2000.
4E: ignoring things that worked in old D&D since 2008.