double checking myself. a leadership question

[big teej]

I have a very simple question.

is taking leadership (in and of itself) as broken as a druid who takes Natural Spell

yes/no

and by "in and of itself" I mean "at any given optimization level, is A as broken as B"

[Boci]

I'd say leadership is definatly more broken, due to the cohort. Sure you could screw it up, but you could also get a druid with wild shape via leadership (at level 8).

Natural spell is powerful, arguable overpowered, but it doesn't have the potential to break the game like leadership. Natural spell + wildshape + animal companion + a careful selection of spells might come close, but still not quite.

[big teej]

I'd say leadership is definatly more broken, due to the cohort. Sure you could screw it up, but you could also get a druid with wild shape via leadership (at level 8).

Natural spell is powerful, arguable overpowered, but it doesn't have the potential to break the game like leadership. Natural spell + wildshape + animal companion + a careful selection of spells might come close, but still not quite.

then perhaps I have chosen my benchmark poorly....

allow me to ask in another form.

"in a given optimization level, that level being 'as low as it gets without going into the negatives' how likely is it to break the game?"

[Divide by Zero]

When you take two things that aren't directly comparable, it's pretty much impossible to call one "more" broken. Either it breaks the game at a given power level, or it doesn't.

[Shadowknight12]

I have a very simple question.

is taking leadership (in and of itself) as broken as a druid who takes Natural Spell

yes/no

and by "in and of itself" I mean "at any given optimization level, is A as broken as B"

It depends on how you handle it.

A) You take full control of the cohort. The cohort is basically another NPC allied with the party. At best, the player can ask or suggest. What actually happens is under your control. This is only as broken as you let it be.

B) The player takes full control of the cohort. This is literally letting the player play two characters at the same time. Action economy being probably the most important aspect of optimisation, this effectively gives the player two sets of actions per round. This is pretty close to the zenith of brokenness. Natural Spell pales so much in comparison it gets mistaken for an anaemic, albino vampire. In the snow.

[holywhippet]

It's not going to break the game if you don't try to make it break the game. You could use your leadership feat to enlist a bunch of bards/singers to go around singing about how great you are. Or you could enlist a spellcaster to give you a heap of buffing spells before you enter into battle. The former is mostly harmless, the latter could make you a killing machine.

[Boci]

Probably the most powerful feat available, definatly overpowered, but probably not broken. I assume the followers and cohort would be lifted striaght from the NPC stat blocks in the DMG.


It's not going to break the game if you don't try to make it break the game deliberatly go out of your way to choose weak followers and cohorts and fail to use them to their full potential.

Fixed for you. Even if you just lift the stats out of the DMG, its way more powerful than almost any other feat avaialble at that optimization level.

[Alabenson]

In terms of sheer power increase to the player, Leadership is by far the single most powerful feat in the game. So yes, Leadership does have the potential to break the game.

However, the capacity for Leadership to break the game is largely dependant on the optimization skill of the player who takes it: the player playing the sword-and-board fighter, the blaster wizard, or the heal-bot cleric is unlikely to break the game even with Leadership.

Essentially, while Leadership can easily break the game, anyone likely to use it to break the game can break the game just as readily without it.

[big teej]

In terms of sheer power increase to the player, Leadership is by far the single most powerful feat in the game. So yes, Leadership does have the potential to break the game.

However, the capacity for Leadership to break the game is largely dependant on the optimization skill of the player who takes it: the player playing the sword-and-board fighter, the blaster wizard, or the heal-bot cleric is unlikely to break the game even with Leadership.

Essentially, while Leadership can easily break the game, anyone likely to use it to break the game can break the game just as readily without it.

I should be in the clear then :smallbiggrin:

so far the most op'd thing my players have ever seen is
1) my orc paragon/barbarian
2) a Duskblade.

[erikun]

Leadership (along with most similar abilities, such as the Thrallherd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/thrallherd.htm) PrC) is probably one of the most potentially game-breaking abilities. It's somewhat like the Cleric or Wizard - taking it doesn't automatically break things, but it is entirely possible to unintentionally create a follower that basically doubles the power of the character taking the feat.

Natural Spell isn't gamebreaking, it's just such an obvious choice for the Druid that there is little reason not to take it. The Druid itself is where the power lies; being able to cast 9th-level spells while a bear is just a bit stronger than being about to cast 9th-level spells and turn into a bear.


so far the most op'd thing my players have ever seen is
1) my orc paragon/barbarian
2) a Duskblade.
1) Character takes Leadership, gets a 2nd barbarian. You now have twice the attacks and twice the HP on the player's side.
2) The character takes a blaster wizard. The player now gets to drop a fireball wherever they want every round as a "free" action.

And these are just the minor applications of Leadership! The feat allows you to, quite literally, replace the party wizard. That should tell you something.

[Killer Angel]

Natural Spell doesn't break the game. It's the Druid and its tier 1 that can break it.
Leadership alone, can easily break the game. Even more than a single druid.

So, even if we assume the same final result, what's more broken: a whole class, or a single feat?
And, more generally, what's more broken: a druid with Natural spell, or a Druid without NS but with Leadership?

Edit:

Wanna really break the game? try Druid with Natural Spell and Leadership. :smallcool:

[Yora]

I have to say I don't have any experience with cohort in a campaign. They can be terrible if you have a player who uses them to only support his own character and pile a huge amount of synergies on himself. But a cohort wizard of two level lower than a PC is weaker than an additional wizard PC at the same level as the other party members who also supports his party mates.

Leadership is very abusable, probably more so than any other ability. But using it will not neccessarily crash the whole campaign. That's why the feat is in the DMG and not the PHB, to be introduced to the campaign if the DM think it's a nice addition.
If I play a paladin and use Leadership to gain a squire, whom I task to stay with the cloistered cleric PC as a bodyguard or who leeds the freed slaves outside while the PCs fight the warlord, I don't think anyone thinks I have an unfair advantage. Or have a bard, whose bardic music benefits every party member.
Making Leadership an option does not have to be a bad idea. But it's a good thing that it's an opt-in option and not an opt-out one. If you're not sure it will work out well, just don't add it to the options the PCs can chose from.

[Amphetryon]

Wanna really break the game? try Druid with Natural Spell and Leadership and Wild Cohort. :smallcool:

Fixed made that worse for you. :smallwink:

[Diarmuid]

I think a lot of the abuse with Leadership comes from the assumption on many players' parts that they can simply craft the exact cohort that they want down to exact skill points, class levels, and feats chosen.

If the DM allows that to happen, then they dont have much to blame except themselves.

If I were DMing for someone who took Leadership, they would be able to specify the archetype, and perhaps a profession they were interested in recruiting, but vetoing options and waiting for another recruit to show up would waste precious time and not be any sort of gaurantee that they're going to get what they want exactly.

D&D is a game of random chance. There should be some amount of randomness with regards to what mook shows up to be the cohort of a PC. Heck, the cohort could be better than what might normally be available as well, though the PC is not going to stat the NPC out. That's my job as the DM.

That might be an unpopular interpretation among some players, and thats fine. I would make sure the players understood how the feat would work so they could decide if it was worth something they wanted to invest in or not.

Almost all optimization carries abig ol' "Assuming the DM allows it" caveat and players need to remember that the DM's are the ones putting in all the work to craft a game and if they dont allow something...too bad. They dont even have to have a good reason for it.

[WinWin]

Not broken. Does it add more complexity to a game? Sure.

I don't regard Natural Spell as broken either. Certainly a better choice than Toughness.

My thought is that if you remove these options from players, then it would not be fair to include them in a game via NPCs and Villains. How else am I going to throw an entire academy of wizards, including an Archmage Red Wizard, simulacra, apprentices and their various created minions at my players as a CR 15 encounter? Hell...the druid in my group could probably solo that with another couple of levels.

[LordBlades]

I think a lot of the abuse with Leadership comes from the assumption on many players' parts that they can simply craft the exact cohort that they want down to exact skill points, class levels, and feats chosen.


Well, technically they can if they really want it:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm




If I were DMing for someone who took Leadership, they would be able to specify the archetype, and perhaps a profession they were interested in recruiting, but vetoing options and waiting for another recruit to show up would waste precious time and not be any sort of gaurantee that they're going to get what they want exactly.

One could just ask for a Druid. they don't need much else than Natural Spell, and you can advise them in game about what spell selection you want.

[Diarmuid]

Well, technically they can if they really want it:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm





One could just ask for a Druid. they don't need much else than Natural Spell, and you can advise them in game about what spell selection you want.

Making Psychic reformation available (if the character is not a Psion/Wilder himself) is another DM option. Heck even just allowing the power in general is an option the DM has.

As for the druid, sure you can look for a druid...but if your actions dont necessarily coincide with normally druidic themes it might take longer for one to come to your service, and there's no assuming that druid will have take Natural Spell.

Anyways, I was more referring to the Leadership examples of the Diplomacy assisting NPC with specific stats, feats, and skill points, or a wizard who is nothing but your party's magic item creation whore.

[Telonius]

Making Psychic reformation available (if the character is not a Psion/Wilder himself) is another DM option. Heck even just allowing the power in general is an option the DM has.


Oberoni principle?

In general, Leadership can run the gamut from mildly useful to ridiculously powerful. Whether or not it's going to break a particular game depends on the DM and the players; and on the particular cohort that comes out of it. It's a challenge to the DM to make sure that the feat isn't wasted on a poorly-constructed cohort, but also doesn't give the player a huge advantage. I'd personally recommend that a cohort shouldn't be in Tier 1 or 2, and take a close look at Tier 3. (Exception: The team has no Cleric, and the cohort is used mainly as a field medic).

[The Glyphstone]

Wanna really break the game? try Druid with Natural Spell and Leadership. And Wild cohort. The Cohort also has Leadership and Wild Cohort. :smallcool:


Fixed made that worse for you. :smallwink:

Made it even worse.:smallbiggrin:

[Killer Angel]

Made it even worse.:smallbiggrin:

Down this path, lie the stickiest varieties of cheddar and gorgonzola cheese...

[Yora]

Be a thrallherd and have a thrallherd cohort.

I just noticed something fascinating: There is a descrepancy in the description of cohorts in the DMG and the SRD. The SRD says "A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment."
However, in the DMG it's: "There are no limitations on the class, race, or gender of a characters cohort, nor limits to the number of cohorts who can be employed by a character." (p. 104) And this is not adressed in the errata at all.

[Alabenson]

Another thing to consider with Leadership is how many players you have in your game: if you have 3 or fewer PCs, Leadership can be very handy, particularly if the optimization level in your group is low, as the OP has indicated.

[Divide by Zero]

1. Make a 6th level character with a Leadership score of at least 21.
2. Have your 6th level follower(s) be an identical copy of you character (unlike cohorts, followers have no level limit other than that on the table).
3. Repeat ad infinitum.
4. Profit?

[Treblain]

1. Make a 6th level character with a Leadership score of at least 21.
2. Have your 6th level follower(s) be an identical copy of you character (unlike cohorts, followers have no level limit other than that on the table).
3. Repeat ad infinitum.
4. Profit?

DM's Response:
0. Say no to this idea.
1. Give the player "The Stare".
2. ???
3. Quit messing around and play the frickin' game.

[BlueInc]

Might be interesting to only let your players have an Adept, Warrior, Aristocrat or Expert for their Leadership feat. Sounds a bit more balanced.