Breaking Leadership

[watchwood]

I've heard some stories abound about just how the Leadership feat is breaking - just how would I go about that? I've got a level 7 bard with 20 charisma, and I'm thinking that there's bound to be something fun I can do with that. Core rules and most splatbooks allowed in this campaign.

Thanks guys.

[Vladislav]

1. Chained leaderships. By the time you're level 8, your cohort is level 6, and can have his own cohort.
2. Breaking WBL. Have your followers to be some kind of expert craftsmen, have them set shop somewhere and give all their profit to you. Having them be of any race that gets craft bonuses (dwarves come to mind) is good. The key is to be able to make craft DC 20 (masterwork item) reliably, then they can generate quite a profit.

Those are the simplest things, w/o any splatbook abuse

[9mm]

how to break the Leadership feat:

Take Leadership.

yes it's really that broken.

[Doc Roc]

So, pick the class you think is the strongest in the game. I like wizard, or sorcerer myself. Now get one for free. That's leadership.

[Forbiddenwar]

I don't understand, how is leadership a problem? Cohorts aren't mind raped automatons (unless they are) My experience has Druid Animal Companions far more broken than leadership.

Leadership depends on a score that only the DM knows, the party's reputation.

Cohorts are the weak link in any group, allowing much DM favorite shenanigans. (Is your cleric cohort really going to heal you? Are you sure? He did just get dominated by the Big Bad, are you sure he made his will save? Better kill him, just to be sure)

Cohorts need food, shelter, comfort and your magical equipment in order to survive, If they don't survive, you will have a difficult (impossible) chance of finding another.

Leadership is necessary in parties that only have 3 members or less (unless they're tier 1)

The cohort is an NPC and so actions and decisions are made by the DM.
In short, Leadership is a feat that allows a DM PC 2 levels lower than the players (Where DM PCs belong)

As a DM, I wholly support the Leadership feat in parties of appropriate size.
Leadership is only broken if you have a poor DM, IMHO. Here's for a fun night, have every party member take leadership and then fight over the "best" cohort.



2. Breaking WBL. Have your followers to be some kind of expert craftsmen, have them set shop somewhere and give all their profit to you.
More likely:
"We're still in the red, master. I need an additional 20,000 gold pieces to cover our loans this month."

[Zaq]

I don't understand, how is leadership a problem? Cohorts aren't mind raped automatons (unless they are) My experience has Druid Animal Companions far more broken than leadership.

Leadership depends on a score that only the DM knows, the party's reputation.

Cohorts are the weak link in any group, allowing much DM favorite shenanigans. (Is your cleric cohort really going to heal you? Are you sure? He did just get dominated by the Big Bad, are you sure he made his will save? Better kill him, just to be sure)

Cohorts need food, shelter, comfort and your magical equipment in order to survive, If they don't survive, you will have a difficult (impossible) chance of finding another.

Leadership is necessary in parties that only have 3 members or less (unless they're tier 1)

The cohort is an NPC and so actions and decisions are made by the DM.
In short, Leadership is a feat that allows a DM PC 2 levels lower than the players (Where DM PCs belong)

As a DM, I wholly support the Leadership feat in parties of appropriate size.
Leadership is only broken if you have a poor DM, IMHO. Here's for a fun night, have every party member take leadership and then fight over the "best" cohort.


More likely:
"We're still in the red, master. I need an additional 20,000 gold pieces to cover our loans this month."

You're right, Leadership isn't a problem at all.

Also, Power Attack is seriously a super-weak feat. I mean, throwing all that strength and power behind your weapon? I'm pretty sure it's going to break after just a few swings at that rate. Sure, magic helps, but only so much, you know?

And don't get me started on how pathetic Darkstalker is. It lets you hide, right? Well, you know how hidden creatures are sometimes in darkness, so there's about a 30% chance that you're just going to get eaten by a grue. Definitely not worthwhile.

And man, Quicken Spell! You've got to cast that spell so fast—how can you really be sure that you're going to get all the fiddly little motions right? I mean, if you have a weak DM, then sure, you'll cast the spell that you think you did, but really, I don't see that happening very often. Not to mention how likely you are to throw out your wrists with all those rapid-fire somatic components.

[Coidzor]

I've heard some stories abound about just how the Leadership feat is breaking - just how would I go about that? I've got a level 7 bard with 20 charisma, and I'm thinking that there's bound to be something fun I can do with that. Core rules and most splatbooks allowed in this campaign.

Thanks guys.

Having a pet full-caster or artificer. Or a pet dread necromancer and taking that one thing that lets your bard stuff effect undead so that you can get dragonfire inspiration on multiple tiger skeletons or something along those lines...


Leadership depends on a score that only the DM knows, the party's reputation.

Re-read the feat. Party reputation is a miniscule part of it by RAW, and most of it the players can easily know. There's like, what, 6 entries on two tables.


Cohorts are the weak link in any group, allowing much DM favorite shenanigans. (Is your cleric cohort really going to heal you? Are you sure? He did just get dominated by the Big Bad, are you sure he made his will save? Better kill him, just to be sure)

Well, that's your experience that they're just for the DM to screw the party over with.


Cohorts need your magical equipment in order to survive, If they don't survive, you will have a difficult (impossible) chance of finding another.

Again, no, that's entirely you and your experience.

[Doc Roc]

You're right, Leadership isn't a problem at all.

Also, Power Attack is seriously a super-weak feat. I mean, throwing all that strength and power behind your weapon? I'm pretty sure it's going to break after just a few swings at that rate. Sure, magic helps, but only so much, you know?

And don't get me started on how pathetic Darkstalker is. It lets you hide, right? Well, you know how hidden creatures are sometimes in darkness, so there's about a 30% chance that you're just going to get eaten by a grue. Definitely not worthwhile.

And man, Quicken Spell! You've got to cast that spell so fast—how can you really be sure that you're going to get all the fiddly little motions right? I mean, if you have a weak DM, then sure, you'll cast the spell that you think you did, but really, I don't see that happening very often. Not to mention how likely you are to throw out your wrists with all those rapid-fire somatic components.

I cracked up. This is fantastic.

[Seerow]

So random note I thought might be worth mentioning, the minimum leadership score to attain a 20th level follower is 26,205. I point this out only because the writers for some reason felt it necessary to say you can't get a follower above 20th level.


Anyone know of a way to break leadership to make that kind of leadership score possible, even in epic levels?

[Coidzor]

Anyone know of a way to break leadership to make that kind of leadership score possible, even in epic levels?

There's some way that Pun-Pun can get an arbitrarily high charisma, but that's the only thing remotely like that I can think of and he can also just give himself the ability to have a leadership score of 26,205, so it's kinda worse than useless to mention...:/

[Hirax]

So random note I thought might be worth mentioning, the minimum leadership score to attain a 20th level follower is 26,205. I point this out only because the writers for some reason felt it necessary to say you can't get a follower above 20th level.


Anyone know of a way to break leadership to make that kind of leadership score possible, even in epic levels?

Infinite loops in epic spellcasting make arbitrarily high stats trivial.

[Forbiddenwar]

SNIP

Oh great and powerful ZAG, please inform this lowly creature why DMs ban the Leadership feat. This simple mind of mine cannot grasp it.
After 11 years of DMing 3rd edition I never had an issue, and therefore can't imagine why any DM would have a problem with this feat.

[Doc Roc]

Oh great and powerful ZAG, please inform this lowly creature why DMs ban the Leadership feat. This simple mind of mine cannot grasp it.
After 11 years of DMing 3rd edition I never had an issue, and therefore can't imagine why any DM would have a problem with this feat.

I'll field this one:
Leadership has three modes:
GM nerfs it to the point where it's a liability.
GM puts a ton of effort into a character.
GM follows RAW and lets the player help design the cohort.

1) Your Option. Yeah. No. I'd be rather mope-tastic if I took a feat for the right to have an albatross. Further, cohorts get NPC WBL, as they are NPCs at a level, and thus have wealth.
2) GM has now assigned a GMPC to the party, and may get mopetastic when the new owner doesn't play Gandalf like a wise wizard. GM may then take control back, meaning the player has just bought an plotbatross. If he or she doesn't, or does a compelling job of running the NPC, we win. Except the GM loses, because now there's more work, and one character's got the NPC on his or her gear sheet.
3) Oh God It's Full Of Stars.

I want to make something perfectly bloody clear. Just because within your circle, within your campaign, within your houserules, something works... Does not make it good. We've all spent a lot of time thinking about this, and only you are defending leadership as a fundamentally good feat. This should at least alert you to the chance that it's not fundamentally good. It may play well at your table, but that's not an objective evaluation of its worth.

I've seen leadership cause real problems repeatedly at multiple tables. Actually, I've seen similar effects cause problems at other tables in other games, too. I'm comfortable sitting steady in this position.

[faceroll]

I've heard some stories abound about just how the Leadership feat is breaking - just how would I go about that? I've got a level 7 bard with 20 charisma, and I'm thinking that there's bound to be something fun I can do with that. Core rules and most splatbooks allowed in this campaign.

Thanks guys.

It's broken in that, from a gamist point of view, you have virtually doubled yourself. But given all the broken stuff in 3.x, it's really only as broken as you make it. If everyone's grown ups, it's not so bad.

I tend to dislike it, because it interrupts the narrative of my IRL games. I allow it, typically, when I run PBP games, because it's quite easy to maintain narrative flow in PBP, and I can also get away with fewer players.

[Doc Roc]

It's broken in that, from a gamist point of view, you have virtually doubled yourself. But given all the broken stuff in 3.x, it's really only as broken as you make it. If everyone's grown ups, it's not so bad.

I tend to dislike it, because it interrupts the narrative of my IRL games. I allow it, typically, when I run PBP games, because it's quite easy to maintain narrative flow in PBP, and I can also get away with fewer players.

This is a good summary, better than mine.. It's not a huge problem necessarily in play, but it leads to slow downs, and action economy weirdness. It's also not factored into CR, which can make encounter design really annoying.

[Laniius]

So does the player control the cohort or the DM? I was under the impression that the player did. Based on this sentence in the DMG "A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under that that player's control, one whose share of XP, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players’ characters." on page 106. OTOH, the DMG says that its perfectly viable to ban leadership if the DM doesn't think it'll work. I've never actually played in a game that used it, and one of my character concepts is dependent on having a cohort - the concept isn't viable if I can't control him.

[Coidzor]

So does the player control the cohort or the DM? I was under the impression that the player did. Based on this sentence in the DMG "A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under that that player's control, one whose share of XP, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players’ characters." on page 106. OTOH, the DMG says that its perfectly viable to ban leadership if the DM doesn't think it'll work. I've never actually played in a game that used it, and one of my character concepts is dependent on having a cohort - the concept isn't viable if I can't control him.

That's rule 0 for you, yeah.

[Canarr]

It's broken in that, from a gamist point of view, you have virtually doubled yourself. But given all the broken stuff in 3.x, it's really only as broken as you make it. If everyone's grown ups, it's not so bad.


Signed.

I've seen Leadership used "grown up", as mostly fluff for PCs that gained a noble title, or held a position of authority in a church, and it made for good playing. But I've also seen a player who managed to convince the GM that her wizard should have wizard followers so she could create a Wizard Academy - then turn around and abuse them as a scroll and potion factory.

Personally, I like the feat. Yeah, it can be broken, but so can many other feats; if that were a criteria, you'd have to dislike a lot of 3.x.

[Aemoh87]

As an experienced GM this is the only way I see it.

Incantrix is a great class that can make certain builds possible... Incantrix can be exploited to great extent.

Leadership is a great idea and makes certain things possible... Leadership can be exploited to a great extent.

Wanna have some shots in the Dark... Cohorts that donate Turn attempts. Artificer Cohorts creating for party. Tier One Cohorts. Cohorts can be disruptive to party economics (are they entitled to extra party, did that wizard become an even bigger bully? Is it going to slow down the game?), Followers can become craft monkeys, Followers can be low level wizards with dispel and magic missile (or worse Ray Orbisons).

But on the other hand... Cohorts can balance out/patch holes in a party (need a trapfinder, now you have one), Cohorts can be great tools for a DM as they can be there as a free encyclopedia of the world for your characters. Followers can allow players to raise realistic armies or organizations. In general it is very fun.

There is lots more. So if you wanna break leadership, consider your campaign over. Ever play a campaign with pun pun? They last about 30 seconds and do no actual "role playing". That is what happens when you break things/mismatch tiers. You could just use Leadership to do fun and specific things and not try to increase your characters power, which could result in a decent campaign with potential for longevity.

I have grown weary of threads asking how to break things just to they can use it in game.

[Thurbane]

I don't understand, how is leadership a problem? Cohorts aren't mind raped automatons (unless they are)
This. Very much this.

If the DM runs cohorts as mindless yesmen, and basically lets the player treat it as a 2nd PC (and also build it from the ground up using char-op to basically make it a prop for the main PC) that's when you run can into issues with leadership.

If, however, the DM has a modicum of sensibility, and the player is reasonable about it, there is precisely zero problem inherent with Leadership. IMHO, if the cohort is run as an NPC who is extremely favorable to his master, it isn't "broken" at all.

If it's the kind of game where someone is going to abuse the Leadership feat beyond all reasonable usage, and the DM lets it happen, the same issues are likely going to occur with cohorts or hirelings without the Leadership feat even being involved...

[Viktyr Gehrig]

A Cohort is like an Animal Companion with class levels and its own WBL. If you've got a feat that is more effective than another player's whole character, there is a balance problem in your campaign.

Of course, if you don't want to outshine the other characters, you can always pick a cohort that makes them better, too. Imagine a game where every PC has Leadership and all of their cohorts are Bards, Marshals, or Dragon Shamans.

edit: I'm inclined to ban Leadership in my games for the simple reason that if I wanted the players to control two PCs, I'd let them control two PCs.

[faceroll]

If the DM runs cohorts as mindless yesmen, and basically lets the player treat it as a 2nd PC (and also build it from the ground up using char-op to basically make it a prop for the main PC) that's when you run can into issues with leadership.

These are two separate things. One is how much control over creation of the cohort, and one is how the cohort is played. Can the character with leadership pick race and class of the cohort? What about feats&skills? Spells known? With just race and class, leadership, at the very least, gives that player access to another full attack per round. The DM could of course give the PC a goblin NPC warrior without any equipment and all his feats in toughness and skills in variations of craft:trollface.jpg, but then, why would any self respecting PC have such a ****ty, loot sucking, xp leaching hanger-on follow him around?

If the cohort is at least quasi-competent within the party, due to the extremely discrete nature of D&D's action economy, the cohort is going to be quite potent.

The second, about roleplay, doesn't make sense to me. Does the cohort refuse to be a party player? The rest of the party has roles they fill, if the horrible cohort warrior can't even balls-up and swing at the dragon, again I ask, what is he doing with the party? If it's a cleric, why is it refusing to cast spells? If it's an artificer, why is it refusing to craft items?

In order for a cohort to be at all contrary to a PC, he's almost always going to have to be less of a party player than the actual party members. In which case, what a goober, he gets taken out back, shanked, and Belkar's now WBL-2 richer.

[Forbiddenwar]

Based on this sentence in the DMG "A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under that that player's control, one whose share of XP, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players’ characters." on page 106.

Ah. Missed that. That changes things. There is a question of how much control. I was thinking cohorts were very friendly towards the PC and playing accordingly. Most cases control falls to the PC, but it extreme cases the cohort can refuse an order. I'm in the "All NPCs have a free mind and their own independent desires and wishes" camp.

[Veyr]

how to break the Leadership feat:

Take Leadership.

yes it's really that broken.
It's funny, I was going to say the exact same thing!

[Tyndmyr]

Ah. Missed that. That changes things. There is a question of how much control. I was thinking cohorts were very friendly towards the PC and playing accordingly. Most cases control falls to the PC, but it extreme cases the cohort can refuse an order. I'm in the "All NPCs have a free mind and their own independent desires and wishes" camp.

Going by pure RAW, the cohort is under the players control so long as they stay within behavior a very loyal, but not suicidal party member would do.

Character creation is technically not listed exactly...and the text implies that the DM has control of it...but the PC is given explicit control over who he's looking for with regards to race/class/alignment. Which, frankly, is the important bits.

Leadership is at once one of the most broken, and most interesting feats. I like minions in play, and feel that they can add a lot to an adventure if used well. Hirelings, cohorts, followers, thralls...all are entertaining.

Also, by my calculation, you only need a leadership score of 51 to pull off a 20th level follower, as per the rules for Epic Leadership, which also specify that leadership does not provide stuff for scores above 25. Enter the Dragonwrought kobold cheese of choice. 51 does not strike me as particularly hard to pull off...you can get +6 off the tables alone, and your levels will add a pretty solid bonus. From there, it's straight cha optimization.

[big teej]

Leadership is a great idea and makes certain things possible... Leadership can be exploited to a great extent.
/snip

I have grown weary of threads asking how to break things just to they can use it in game.

I concur,

example: I have a character in an ongoing campaign that I plan to take leadership with.

heck, I even came to these forums and asked if it was possible to abuse it by accident (answers were a resounding 'no')

why do I want it?
because I'm a knight, and dang it, I am GOING to have a herald. this intially was just 'lets pay for a guy to announce me'

but eventually grew into this whole 'knight's entourage' thing and now I"m gonna take leadership

also, +1 to game breaking, gotta go battery is about to die on me

[Kantolin]

If, however, the DM has a modicum of sensibility, and the player is reasonable about it, there is precisely zero problem inherent with Leadership. IMHO, if the cohort is run as an NPC who is extremely favorable to his master, it isn't "broken" at all.

If it's the kind of game where someone is going to abuse the Leadership feat beyond all reasonable usage, and the DM lets it happen, the same issues are likely going to occur with cohorts or hirelings without the Leadership feat even being involved...

Well, uh.

Okay, presuming using leadership means by mandate that you get a mostly underoptimized sword and board fighter.

This means, with one feat, you have another character. If the character is, say, two levels less useful than the rest of the party... then that's fine, he won't outshine anyone in the party and you still have another entire character to help you out in combat.

I mean, would you spend a feat to get a moderately useful second combat-character? I totally would. What's better than a wizard? A wizard with a fighter buddy who's his friend always standing there.

That's pretty strong for a feat, even if the character isn't a hyperoptimized monster. If the cohort is then completely useless, then that's 'The DM made Leadership a useless feat', which does not make leadership fair - that in fact makes it broken-useless.

[Firechanter]

BTW, if you take Leadership, do you actually bother with the Followers, you are you just in it for the Cohort?

[Mordokai]

BTW, if you take Leadership, do you actually bother with the Followers, you are you just in it for the Cohort?

A bard with crusader bodyguard(cohort) and grupies(followers)?

[Coidzor]

Okay, presuming using leadership means by mandate that you get a mostly underoptimized sword and board fighter.

This means, with one feat, you have another character. If the character is, say, two levels less useful than the rest of the party... then that's fine, he won't outshine anyone in the party and you still have another entire character to help you out in combat.

...I wonder which is more useful, the Druid's Animal Companion which is said to be about as good as an underoptimized sword and boarder or the sword and boarder 2 levels below the party?

[Aemoh87]

The reality is just play it friendly. We can argue about druid companions and powerful cohorts, and followers crafting but the reality is breaking 3.5 isn't hard. JUST PLAY AT THE LEVEL OF YOUR TABLES OPTIMIZATION. Playing Tier one all out optimization fest, go nuts with leadership, it might make a lower Tier class playable. Playing well built but unoptimized game where certain strategies are avoided because of their power? Don't build a cohort to break the game, and on that note don't build your druid to break the game either.

If this is difficult for you, your called an unfriendly PC. And you need to learn that what your doing is ruining the game, even for you. If you just can't stop from scratching your optimization itch, optimize something that is not considered "good". Currently I am working on a wizard built around thunder lance and call lighting. Just getting call lightning is a hassle, but in the end I will be an Incantrix. My DM has no problem with this because he knows how I will play the build and that it won't break the game or out shine other players with ease.

[big teej]

BTW, if you take Leadership, do you actually bother with the Followers, you are you just in it for the Cohort?

I'm in it for the followers just as much as the cohort.

[Coidzor]

If this is difficult for you, your called an unfriendly PC.

Player. Player. No one here is the PC.


If you just can't stop from scratching your optimization itch, optimize something that is not considered "good".

Kinda missing the point here.

[Frozen_Feet]

Cohort is just another character. It is not a problem. It'd be the same if a new player popped up with a new character. Cohorts don't break the game, they just add to it. They become "broken" only if you're dead set on the principle that one player has power and wealth of one character, period. In my games, I expect everyone to get some form of Cohort sooner or later.

(Yeah yeah, Cohorts can do broken stuff. That is not a problem with Leadership, it's a problem with all those other options that can break a character, and which are coincidentally available to a Cohort.)

So Cohorts are fine.

Followers are slightly more problematic. That's becasue sheer quantity of them can fundamentally alter the environment the PCs work in. That said, they're not a problem if they're kept at home watching over property of the characters. Again, I expect my players to eventually get a huge working force of servants and underlings after a point.

Problems start to crop up when you realize that each of those followers is a character too, and mechanical power given to characters starts to add up oddly once you get beyond certain mass of people. Many exploits, loopholes and mechanical defects of the system that were only midly inconveniencing at a group level are multiplied until they crack the game. D&D isn't really suited for handling as big groups as followers eventually add up to. At some point, you'll find that using RAW for them becomes clunky as hell, but there isn't really anything else to use for them either.

[Epsilon Rose]

Cohort is just another character. It is not a problem. It'd be the same if a new player popped up with a new character. Cohorts don't break the game, they just add to it. They become "broken" only if you're dead set on the principle that one player has power and wealth of one character, period. In my games, I expect everyone to get some form of Cohort sooner or later.

(Yeah yeah, Cohorts can do broken stuff. That is not a problem with Leadership, it's a problem with all those other options that can break a character, and which are coincidentally available to a Cohort.)

So Cohorts are fine.

Followers are slightly more problematic. That's becasue sheer quantity of them can fundamentally alter the environment the PCs work in. That said, they're not a problem if they're kept at home watching over property of the characters. Again, I expect my players to eventually get a huge working force of servants and underlings after a point.

Problems start to crop up when you realize that each of those followers is a character too, and mechanical power given to characters starts to add up oddly once you get beyond certain mass of people. Many exploits, loopholes and mechanical defects of the system that were only midly inconveniencing at a group level are multiplied until they crack the game. D&D isn't really suited for handling as big groups as followers eventually add up to. At some point, you'll find that using RAW for them becomes clunky as hell, but there isn't really anything else to use for them either.

About that, would anyone happen to know of a leadership variant that gives you less followers but makes them of a more useful level. Occasionally I want to play the leader of a mercenary company or something and having a handful of relatively lower level followers would be nice while a hundred level ones in the hinterlands feels like a bit of a wasted feat (especially when leadership caps out at 2(?) 5th level followers even at level 20).

[Cog]

One CR-relevant cohort is probably enough benefit for a single feat. For that idea, though, you could look at the organizations that are scattered through some of the later books. A number of them actually require you to lead teams on missions.

[Kantolin]

In my games, I expect everyone to get some form of Cohort sooner or later.

That actually does fix the problem - if everyone has leadership, then it's fine.

The trouble is that if leadership is open as an option, it's a tremendously powerful option as it basically doubles you. I'm more or less agreeing with you - if you take leadership, it is about the same as if another person just walked in with another PC. You can take a feat to be almost the same as if your buddy walked in with a character of his own.

This is doubly true if either the party is fairly low-optimization (So even a lousy cohort is valuable), or if the cohort is permitted to be anywhere near the optimization level of the party or in a useful buffer role (Say, a sword and board warblade, or a buffer wizard, or a bard).

Is this unsolveable? No - very little in D&D is unsolveable without absolute fiat. Just make everything more difficult. But 'get another character loyal to you' is a lot more useful than, say, 'trade BAB for a bonus to damage'. Or even, say, quicken spell - it's a whole additional set of actions and such, and lets you control two characters.

I treat playing in a leadership game about the same as playing in a gestalt game - it's a high powered option.

(Although as a complete aside, I wonder if allowing the 'weaker' classes to have leadership would be an interesting tweak to the tier system? Granted, that hurts your average fighter more than your average paladin, so it's not even across the board, but still)

[Frozen_Feet]

(Although as a complete aside, I wonder if allowing the 'weaker' classes to have leadership would be an interesting tweak to the tier system? )

No. As noted, it just adds a character (or characters). Obviously more people can do more things, but that's not very interesting when you get down to it, since events can still transpire where those extra characters are not present and this tweak doesn't do anything for the main character

It'd be interesting for wholly other reasons, but in the context of the tier system, not so much.

[Firechanter]

About that, would anyone happen to know of a leadership variant that gives you less followers but makes them of a more useful level.

I once made up a variant for a Conan game. It went roughly like this: multiply the number of followers with their respective level, and you have the total available levels, while the highest individual level remains the same as per the table.
The Conan Leadership list seems to be a bit different from the D&D one; essentially it meant that you could get a company of 80 hardened 6th-level Soldiers or suchlike.
In return for this, the Cohort wouldn't tag along with the party, but was needed as your lieutenant and commander of your company.

[stainboy]

I ran a game where all the PCs had followers they were allowed to help build and mostly allowed to control in combat, and I *still* banned Leadership. If you get a henchman for free, that's fine. But if you spend a feat on a henchman, and obligate me to make that henchman always worth your feat, that's broken.

Mechanically a henchman cannot be worth one feat. It can have zero value, or an enormous positive value, or an enormous negative value, but there is basically no way to make an entire character worth one feat.

[Kantolin]

No. As noted, it just adds a character (or characters).

Just? O_o That's pretty awesome.


Obviously more people can do more things, but that's not very interesting when you get down to it,

That sentence also confuses me.

Doing more things sounds, generally, more interesting. You can have a stabber and an archer. Or someone chatting with the king while you're also trying to convince the bandits to stand down. Or someone chatting with the king while you're also stabbing things.


events can still transpire where those extra characters are not present

It's a feat, though. Usually there's some event that makes a feat not useful at the moment - there are situations where power attacking is bad, you won't use natural spell when talking with the duke (Unless the duke is a bear), and what-not. So sure, once in awhile, you end up in a duel and summarily cannot use that feat (Nor, say, any item creation feat, nor any teamwork benifit).

Now, if you're suggesting that leadership is fair because the DM is not supposed to let you actually have that cohort in a majority of situations, then that actually nerfs leadership to being kinda broken-useless. Which is fine enough, mind you, as personally I just ban it from my games barring very special circumstances or a game based around it, but 'you aren't permitted to use it very often' isn't exactly a good argument against it.


It'd be interesting for wholly other reasons, but in the context of the tier system, not so much.

Well, the tier system focuses on the ability to solve problems and aid the party. Leadership certainly seems like a better feat to do that than power attack, so that may help a fighter help the party more than he could by himslef. Restricting it to the fighter means he can do a lot more to help out, which may bump him from 'able to do a single thing and not always well' to 'able to do a small array of things, and do one thing well'.

~~

Edit: As an addition I feel is necessary, I don't see the tier system ashelpful in general as some do. It's a nice analysis of potential, but it has some problems with its assumptions - it is correct that 'all a barbarian will do is some damage', but a lot of damage will wreck up a low-optimization game even if you can relatively protect it, and I tend to play in low-optimization games. :P

That stated, I do agree with most of the principles, especially if you get past the notion that Tier 1 is the 'best' tier or sommat. Maybe they should've used colors and not numbers. ^_^

[Frozen_Feet]

Well, the tier system focuses on the ability to solve problems and aid the party.
Correction: it focuses on ranking character classes based on their ability to solve problems and aid the party, to give guidelines for which kinds of characters have mechanical parity.

In that context, adding characters shifts attention from classes to players. In effect, a new character doesn't add anything to the tier of a character. Instead, you end up with several characters, with their own tiers, and are trying to questimate a tier for the player.

So as a tweak to the tier system? Not very interesting. Tiers exist to make it easier to estimate mechanical strenght, and if anything, Leadership makes that harder.

It can be interesting for a game, like for the scenarios you described. But generally, allure in playing multiple character lies elsewhere than trying to maintain or create mechanical balance.

[Elric VIII]

Just play a Dvati with leadership with a Dvati cohort, with a Dvati cohort, with a Dvati cohort, with a Dvati cohort...

Put that in your tier list and smoke it:smallbiggrin:

[Aemoh87]

Just play a Dvati with leadership with a Dvati cohort, with a Dvati cohort, with a Dvati cohort, with a Dvati cohort...

Put that in your tier list and smoke it:smallbiggrin:

Don't forget extra followers and feats so your cohorts are only a lvl behind! :)

[Laniius]

If you go the Dvati route remember that a Dvati pair of PC's splits the HP pool in half and if one dies the other dies.

[Aemoh87]

If you go the Dvati route remember that a Dvati pair of PC's splits the HP pool in half and if one dies the other dies.

Yeah but you get double followers and cohorts :)

[The Glyphstone]

Make all your followers Dvati too - double the size of your personal army at no extra cost, or just populate an entire small town by yourself.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Make all your followers Dvati too - double the size of your personal army at no extra cost, or just populate an entire small town by yourself.
Heh, reminds me of a d20 Modern build I thought up using the equivalent of Leadership in that game (it's split in to two feats, Sidekick and Minions, but Sidekicks can be up to 1 less than your level rather than 2, and you get to add your Reputation bonus to your leadership score) with a class from d20 Future that gives you access to copies of yourself from parallel universes. Long story short, it comes to over 100000 characters (although about 85000 of those are level 1 minions).

[navar100]

My DM changed Leadership. It's almost entirely a roleplaying feat now. Having the feat means your character has that spark of whatever that has people (NPCs) want to follow your lead. Taking the feat does give you a cohort and followers, but not by the book. The DM determines everything about the cohort and followers. The cohort is a leveled NPC who is your right-hand man assistant. Only traveling with the party occasionally, the cohort is mostly used a means to get things accomplished that needs to be done (personal or party reasons), but the party has to go somewhere else. Followers are experts in particular fields and/or loyal NPCs in a dedicated cause specific to you. They could even have class levels, but their doings are only related to whatever personal stuff your character deals with.

[Koury]

My DM changed Leadership. It's almost entirely a roleplaying feat now. Having the feat means your character has that spark of whatever that has people (NPCs) want to follow your lead. Taking the feat does give you a cohort and followers, but not by the book. The DM determines everything about the cohort and followers. The cohort is a leveled NPC who is your right-hand man assistant. Only traveling with the party occasionally, the cohort is mostly used a means to get things accomplished that needs to be done (personal or party reasons), but the party has to go somewhere else. Followers are experts in particular fields and/or loyal NPCs in a dedicated cause specific to you. They could even have class levels, but their doings are only related to whatever personal stuff your character deals with.

But couldn't I do that exact sme thing by paying gold? Not even a lot of gold, if you go by the DMG prices.

I wouldn't take a feat to save a few bucks.

[Thurbane]

I've been involved in plenty of games with a low number of players where each player is allowed multiple PCs. Leadership isn't inherently any more broken than that.

Honestly, there's a ton of stuff in 3.5 that can easily be abused - pretty much all of it can easily be implemented without breaking the game so long as the players and DM aren't jerks about it. Sure, inexperienced DMs (and players) will allow stuff in games without realizing it's potential to wreck the balance of the game, but that's part of learning curve with a lot of games.

Leadership is in the DMG for a reason, and there's plenty of advice in there that says to allow it only with caution.

[Aemoh87]

Most the problems I have with leadership have nothing to do with it being broken since it often is not used to break games. I just make sure my players are ready to keep the game moving even though they have extra turns.

If the game keeps moving at a decent pace, I have no problem at all unless they try some stupid tricks which are easy to see coming. An example of this is having a ton of followers that craft. Instead of selling each item individually I make them use business rules from DMG 2.

[navar100]

But couldn't I do that exact sme thing by paying gold? Not even a lot of gold, if you go by the DMG prices.

I wouldn't take a feat to save a few bucks.

No, you couldn't. Money does not buy loyalty. Money does not buy someone willing to risk his life on a regular basis for your cause out of admiration and equal belief. Without Leadership, the rogue could not have been King of Thieves. My cleric could not have been Duke of the Western Realm. The wizard could not have been Headmistress of the Wizard's Guild.

[Aemoh87]

No, you couldn't. Money does not buy loyalty. Money does not buy someone willing to risk his life on a regular basis for your cause out of admiration and equal belief. Without Leadership, the rogue could not have been King of Thieves. My cleric could not have been Duke of the Western Realm. The wizard could not have been Headmistress of the Wizard's Guild.

Technically leadership doesn't either lol.

Even though the DMG claims they are some what... but mistreat them they will turn. Leadership is such a DM influenced feat as well. That is the biggest question in my mind of whether to take leadership or not.

[OracleofWuffing]

The wizard could not have been Headmistress of the Wizard's Guild.
There's a Mindrape for that. :smalltongue:

[Particle_Man]

For followers, I hear that Warlocks are fairly cheesy.

[Silva Stormrage]

For followers, I hear that Warlocks are fairly cheesy.

Ummm how so?

[Aemoh87]

I am still not convinced that there is any new cheese to leadership. It can be used to imitate old cheese, but it in itself is not cheese.

It is very powerful, but if you have to take care of the followers. And the cohort too, remember it just says death so res cannot save your from that penalty.

And what better target for a BBEG or a QNP (Quiet Nice Paladin, for the evil players) than a bunch of weak followers hmmm?

[Elric VIII]

Ummm how so?

I assume that one would take advantage of their ability to craft magic items without the prerequisite spells. This is similar to an Artificer cohort, but your DM may not see it coming, since Warlock is not too powerful.

[Coidzor]

I assume that one would take advantage of their ability to craft magic items without the prerequisite spells. This is similar to an Artificer cohort, but your DM may not see it coming, since Warlock is not too powerful.

Doesn't really seem like it'd be relevant to a level 1-2 warlock unless you were using them as a source of scribed scrolls so that one could fill up a spellbook or sommat though... :smallconfused:

[Particle_Man]

Ummm how so?

1) Infinite ranged touch attacks. Even for low level dweebs touch attacks often hit. And keeping them at range keeps them alive.
2a) Variety in least invocations. Get one to see invisibility, one to breath water, one to do this, one to do that . . . a sort of swiss-army knife.

or

2b) Give them all Eldritch Spear to make the ranged touch attacks longer ranged touch attacks, to keep them alive better (if you care about that sort of thing).

And that is for the level 1 warlock followers. Your level 2 ones detect magic at will. Your level 3 ones get another least invocation.

It is pretty good bang for the follower buck. Some DMs think that:

"Having 135 Artificer or Warlock followers is shenanigans, and breaks the game."

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/304681-leadership-optimization-handbook.html

[Doc Roc]

I am still not convinced that there is any new cheese to leadership. It can be used to imitate old cheese, but it in itself is not cheese.

It is very powerful, but if you have to take care of the followers. And the cohort too, remember it just says death so res cannot save your from that penalty.

And what better target for a BBEG or a QNP (Quiet Nice Paladin, for the evil players) than a bunch of weak followers hmmm?

Toss the followers into the fire before he can? Use them for XP rituals?

The thing people are missing is that the only economy in 3.x that truly matters is the action economy. Neglecting this is foolishness.

[Tyndmyr]

I am still not convinced that there is any new cheese to leadership. It can be used to imitate old cheese, but it in itself is not cheese.

It is very powerful, but if you have to take care of the followers. And the cohort too, remember it just says death so res cannot save your from that penalty.

And what better target for a BBEG or a QNP (Quiet Nice Paladin, for the evil players) than a bunch of weak followers hmmm?

It's not hard to make a mass of lower players a real threat. For the Ball o' Kobolds, I just abused concentrated volleys, but a host of ways exist at even level one to cheese up a nasty character. Not nasty enough to kill the BBEG solo, perhaps, but in concert with hundreds or thousands more? Guaranteed.

Consider the fell drain sonic snap arcanist. That's a guaranteed negative level for anyone not immune to sonic or negative energy. Or the warlock, which has solid odds of landing a d6 of force damage.

If your followers are a diverse lot, it is very difficult for the BBEG to be immune to every possible attack, and failure to cover one will general will lead to death.

[Analytica]

I took Leadership to get a literal Alfred butler for my Batman wizard. He was an elderly rogue/assassin with low DEX and feats like Haggling. This character should not be used in combat, he would simply do ordinary things so my wizard did not have to. If I died, he would escape with a bit of the corpse so I could be ressurrected. Even if the cohort would have been combat capable, I wouldn't have used him, partly to avoid risking him, partly to avoid making turns take longer. My Followers would be mooks and redshirts like a Batman villain would have.

Sure, this is a waste of a feat from one perspective. The same is true for something like Spell Thematics, which I might likewise take. But I don't really like games where I have to optimize perfectly to have fun anyway, and I don't think even RAW states that a game has to be like that. So in the end, it all depends on what game your group is playing.

If everything must be optimized, everyone should have their crafting cohort, or the feat banned for balance and fairness (in which everyone should also probably play the same tier). If not... preferably, craft all characters to be about equally powerful, through downplaying too powerful options if they are still too cool to pass by. This in my opinion is no problem in the type of home games that most RPGs arguably were initially designed for.

I suspect people with much experience of online games with strangers or competitive RPG event games, where it cannot be assumed that everyone shares compatible visions of what the game should be like, may have very different experiences from me. Possibly this is the reason that discussions of this kind of thing tends to become polarized, with people on either side unable to understand why the other side doesn't get it.

[navar100]

Technically leadership doesn't either lol.

Even though the DMG claims they are some what... but mistreat them they will turn. Leadership is such a DM influenced feat as well. That is the biggest question in my mind of whether to take leadership or not.

I'm not talking about RAW Leadership. I'm talking about how my DM changed Leadership.

[Coidzor]

I took Leadership to get a literal Alfred butler for my Batman wizard. He was an elderly rogue/assassin with low DEX and feats like Haggling. This character should not be used in combat, he would simply do ordinary things so my wizard did not have to. If I died, he would escape with a bit of the corpse so I could be ressurrected. Even if the cohort would have been combat capable, I wouldn't have used him, partly to avoid risking him, partly to avoid making turns take longer. My Followers would be mooks and redshirts like a Batman villain would have.

...Why on earth would you sell Alfred so short? :smallconfused: Venerable is only a -3. That'd still be a middling Dex of 12-15 or so considering what he was at his Prime.


Sure, this is a waste of a feat from one perspective. The same is true for something like Spell Thematics, which I might likewise take. But I don't really like games where I have to optimize perfectly to have fun anyway, and I don't think even RAW states that a game has to be like that. So in the end, it all depends on what game your group is playing.

Considering it was entirely roleplaying stuff anyway, it does definitely bring up the question of why you had to pay a feat for a roleplaying reward that doesn't really affect your actual.. y'know... character.

[Doc Roc]

I'm not talking about RAW Leadership. I'm talking about how my DM changed Leadership.

This is me, losing interest in a discussion with you about a rapidly changing set of rules I don't know, and cannot grasp due to their protean nature.

[Aemoh87]

Toss the followers into the fire before he can? Use them for XP rituals?

The thing people are missing is that the only economy in 3.x that truly matters is the action economy. Neglecting this is foolishness.

I don't think followers are cool with being sacrificed or harvested for agony or any the like... Plus this exist without followers, its very easy to do with a small group.

There are a ton of ways to harvest XP for crafting and casting though.


It's not hard to make a mass of lower players a real threat. For the Ball o' Kobolds, I just abused concentrated volleys, but a host of ways exist at even level one to cheese up a nasty character. Not nasty enough to kill the BBEG solo, perhaps, but in concert with hundreds or thousands more? Guaranteed.

Consider the fell drain sonic snap arcanist. That's a guaranteed negative level for anyone not immune to sonic or negative energy. Or the warlock, which has solid odds of landing a d6 of force damage.

If your followers are a diverse lot, it is very difficult for the BBEG to be immune to every possible attack, and failure to cover one will general will lead to death.

I feel that large groups should be able to overcome single enemies. The problem is if that group doesn't go first how much damage can that one enemy do to it before it dies.

But touch attack exploitation is nothing new. Ray Orbisons love dropping high level NPC's at low level.

This is also picking the Tier 1 followers... assuming you can FIND THEM WALKING AROUND. It doesn't say you get to build them.


I'm not talking about RAW Leadership. I'm talking about how my DM changed Leadership.

Everyone knows house rules are important to DND games. But that are impossible to discuss and it is often pointless.

I recently learned how pointless talking about grey rulings over the playground was aswell.

[Lhurgyof]

Not probably going to help, but in Dark Sun, our DM had all warriors (fighters) gain leadership as a bonus feat at first level. It's a carry-over from the AD&D rules were fighters attracted followers and eventually (in epic levels) had armies.

But, you still had to feed them and made sure they had a place to stay. But he made it work, in fact he was the best DM I've ever had.


...Why on earth would you sell Alfred so short? :smallconfused: Venerable is only a -3. That'd still be a middling Dex of 12-15 or so considering what he was at his Prime.



Considering it was entirely roleplaying stuff anyway, it does definitely bring up the question of why you had to pay a feat for a roleplaying reward that doesn't really affect your actual.. y'know... character.

... The age penalties are cumulative, so it's a -6.

[Analytica]

...Why on earth would you sell Alfred so short? :smallconfused: Venerable is only a -3. That'd still be a middling Dex of 12-15 or so considering what he was at his Prime.

As someone said, cumulative. I think he had 14 to start with and ended up at 8. He had to have good stats overall to help my STR 8, WIS 6 wizard handle day to day life...


Considering it was entirely roleplaying stuff anyway, it does definitely bring up the question of why you had to pay a feat for a roleplaying reward that doesn't really affect your actual.. y'know... character.

The thing is, I see a mechanics-supported minion as something the DM can be expected to maintain in the story, or that I could eventually replace if it went away. A hireling is more likely to die by collateral damage than a cohort. Leadership means that, given sufficient downtime, you will end up surrounded by minions if you want to. Putative cohorts/mini-bosses will be drawn to you and support your cause, if you have one. Your minions will follow you when you are driven from your centre of power, will conspire to get you out of jail, and the chances of bribery or betrayal becomes smaller. If you are short on money, they still won't abandon you, but will help you make or plunder more money. It does say something about the character, though admittedly in a vague fashion. All in all, I interpret it a lot like the Retainer background/merit from WoD. The actual Leadership rules don't go into this type of detail, of course, so this is just my interpretation.

[Aemoh87]

The thing is, I see a mechanics-supported minion as something the DM can be expected to maintain in the story, or that I could eventually replace if it went away. A hireling is more likely to die by collateral damage than a cohort. Leadership means that, given sufficient downtime, you will end up surrounded by minions if you want to. Putative cohorts/mini-bosses will be drawn to you and support your cause, if you have one. Your minions will follow you when you are driven from your centre of power, will conspire to get you out of jail, and the chances of bribery or betrayal becomes smaller. If you are short on money, they still won't abandon you, but will help you make or plunder more money. It does say something about the character, though admittedly in a vague fashion. All in all, I interpret it a lot like the Retainer background/merit from WoD. The actual Leadership rules don't go into this type of detail, of course, so this is just my interpretation.

I think this is a good point. Personally I think some things in 3.5 were purposely left gray (they did have a chance to "fix" leadership coming from 3.0) so that these interpretations could be made. As for the support and treachery of your minions as a DM I feel that it is based on your cause and how you treat them. If you have a weak or no cause and you just want to use them they will be likely for treachery, but if its a strong cause and you make them vital members they will be much less likely. There are several more factors you can include. But the point is, this is part of the flavor side of the game which is really the best part of DnD in my opinion.

Also this is an interpretation, so no one freak out and post about how this is stupid and their house rule/interpretation is better. Different rules work for different groups, and sometimes groups want to experiment with different rules.

[navar100]

This is me, losing interest in a discussion with you about a rapidly changing set of rules I don't know, and cannot grasp due to their protean nature.

Get off your high horse and reread and comprehend.

I offered an anecdote of what my DM did for his campaign in regards to Leadership just for conversation. I specifically wrote the DM changed how Leadership worked for the game. Perhaps the anecdote would inspire others into changing Leadership as a house rule roleplaying feat if they're having trouble dealing with the RAW game mechanics. If not, no big deal; I was just sharing for the sake of sharing.

Enter Koury asking about using gold to pay for what we could do with the DM's change to Leadership in the game then saying he wouldn't spend a feat for it. I responded to how he was incorrect. Spending money could not do what we were able to do.

Enter Aemoh87 saying Leadership could not do what I said it did. I responded that I wasn't talking about RAW Leadership because I was responding to a post about an inquiry to my posting of an anecote of how my DM changed Leadership.

Enter you with nothing to add but snobbery.





Everyone knows house rules are important to DND games. But that are impossible to discuss and it is often pointless.

I recently learned how pointless talking about grey rulings over the playground was aswell.

I was responding to a specific question.

[Doc Roc]

Get off your high horse and reread and comprehend.

I offered an anecdote of what my DM did for his campaign in regards to Leadership just for conversation. I specifically wrote the DM changed how Leadership worked for the game. Perhaps the anecdote would inspire others into changing Leadership as a house rule roleplaying feat if they're having trouble dealing with the RAW game mechanics. If not, no big deal; I was just sharing for the sake of sharing.

Enter Koury asking about using gold to pay for what we could do with the DM's change to Leadership in the game then saying he wouldn't spend a feat for it. I responded to how he was incorrect. Spending money could not do what we were able to do.

Enter Aemoh87 saying Leadership could not do what I said it did. I responded that I wasn't talking about RAW Leadership because I was responding to a post about an inquiry to my posting of an anecote of how my DM changed Leadership.

Enter you with nothing to add but snobbery.

Actually, it's disdain. I'm frustrated with your anecdote, which I did read, and did comprehend, and just really don't understand why you told it at all. This is a thread about the feat in the book. I guess it's snobbery too. Probably elitism as well. To be honest, I've likely been unfair, and I acknowledge that. Neither of us has handled this well, and I'm going to go ahead and suggest that much of the fault lies with me.

[Aemoh87]

I was responding to a specific question.

That comment was directed at you and several others. Your finding out what happens when you post a house rule that works for your group. They are hard to discuss and often get attacked. People often ask for solutions, which just get munched by the waiting swarm of sharks.

With that said I don't care for your house ruling but different groups approach things differently, so it prolly just means it wouldn't work for my group.

But this is the internet, be prepared to hopelessly defend anything you say... both in and out of context.

[Koury]

Enter Koury asking about using gold to pay for what we could do with the DM's change to Leadership in the game then saying he wouldn't spend a feat for it. I responded to how he was incorrect. Spending money could not do what we were able to do.
To be fair, you didn't really tell me how I was incorrect. You simply told me I was incorrect. Let me go back and give a response to your post.


No, you couldn't. Money does not buy loyalty. Money does not buy someone willing to risk his life on a regular basis for your cause out of admiration and equal belief. Without Leadership, the rogue could not have been King of Thieves. My cleric could not have been Duke of the Western Realm. The wizard could not have been Headmistress of the Wizard's Guild. Why? Why could the cleric not be a Duke or the rogue King of Thieves? I think money can buy loyalty. From the DMG:


Cohorts are loyal servants who follow a particular character or sometimes a group of characters. (NPC adventurers can have cohorts, too.) They are hired by or seek out a PC or PCs, and they work out a deal agreeable to both parties so that the NPC works for the characters. This passage, to me, seems to say very clearly both that cohorts are loyal and that they can be bought with gold (as opposed to only via Leadership). It, of course, goes on to say that mistreated cohorts will leave, but thats a difference between taking Leadership and just buying a loyal servant, I guess.

And what about the tons of people who run the guilds? Well, the very next page goes into detail about both followers and hirelings.

So I stand by my original post:


But couldn't I do that exact same thing by paying gold? Not even a lot of gold, if you go by the DMG prices.

I wouldn't take a feat to save a few bucks.

[Coidzor]

Money may not be able to buy loyalty but it can definitely buy employees who when treated well and given incentives will be loyal... especially if they can't really turn on their master and expect anything good to come of it as he's practically godlike in comparison to their own abilities and frame of reference.

After all, Leadership is not a prerequisite feat that all innkeepers or craftsmen or shopkeepers all have in order to have businesses.