How do you handle Leadership?

[Dalebert]

My DM won't just ban it outright but I'm getting the feeling that he wants to. He's said we're not going to meet a lot of people in the near future implying that we have to cross paths with potential cohorts in-game for them to be eligable cohorts. I've always interpreted the feat to be like plot magic as in, one way or another, you attract someone to you who is something like the cohort you want. Maybe they heard of your deeds and get in touch with you. Maybe they're a relative who now wants to reconnect. Maybe they're a penpal who you've been writing to during offline time who has now decided they want to meet you.

So how do you guys handle it?

[Craft (Cheese)]

I ban the feat. If you want an NPC to join the party and follow you around (whether one you meet in-game or an NPC you design yourself like a dedicated crafter), talk to me about it and I'll work something out, but be warned that I play them, not you.

At least in my experience that last part is enough to stop players from abusing it.

[Prince Raven]

I ban it, if my players want groupies they have to work for it, not just take a feat.

[Krobar]

I don't ban it. I make my players work on getting a cohort in game, and at the end of that, once they've earned it in character, I let them take the feat. I took the Dragon Cohort feat and had to go on a long adventure for me to actually get it.

[Vhaidara]

Generally, I use it as a flavor feat. Like if my character is a minor noble, I'll pick it up. Cohort is usually the champion in my stead, while the highest level follower is the majordomo.

In fact, I have a gnome bard who is taking both Landlord and Leadership. He's opening a college on what he is going to consider a holy site. Leadership will represent faculty, and we're going to be adventuring cross country, so I won't be abusing wondrous architecture. At best, it will be some extra money, which, since I'm our most powerful caster (and I haven't bought gear for 6 levels), won't really be a problem.

[OldTrees1]

Seconding the Flavor feat usage.

I use Leadership/allow Leadership to be used for a mechanical representation of having background subordinates.

Ex:
A Noble might have Leadership to represent the staff of a keep/castle.
A Professor might have Leadership to represent the research assistants and students at his college.
A Thief might have Leadership to represent the guildhall they are creating.
A Paladin might have Leadership to represent a holy order they founded.
...

I have these take place in the background. The Character can channel extra resources to them and they can be used for plot hooks but they are not a resource engine/2nd character.

[VoxRationis]

I dunno. No one at my table ever takes Leadership; I think I'm the only one who has. In both cases, I used it to represent organizations my character founded. They provided minor support at best and I didn't abuse them; they were really more of flavor than anything else.
If one of my players took it mid-campaign, I'd argue that they'd have to acquire these followers gradually, and in a reasonable way, and that the circumstances, rather than the player, would dictate what kind of followers he got.

[Dalebert]

At this point I feel our party just desperately needs a cleric. I'm actually totally fine with an NPC who gets a split of party treasure and who is primarily focused on hanging back and providing support (buffs and heals). If that saves me having to spend a feat on Leadership, even better. Maybe I'll run that by my DM.

[The Insanity]

I handle it like evey other good option - I encourage it.

[VoxRationis]

Few campaigns actually have a good in-universe distinction between PCs and NPCs, in my experience. In-universe, you should be able to convince an NPC that there is need for them to go adventuring with you, if your argument is good enough.

[Palanan]

I took Leadership in my first 3.5 game and my DM was fine with it. I'd been writing a lot of background for my character, and included my intended cohort as one of my character's earlier companions. My DM really liked how I'd written the intended cohort, and the background in general, and when we came to a good point in the campaign my DM worked in the cohort as part of the plot.

Sadly, my attempts at followers didn't fare so well. For some reason this same DM really liked killing followers. We had another PC who had taken Leadership and had a whole retinue of men-at-arms, almost all of whom were wiped out by a single green dragon attack. After that, both PCs with Leadership were down to their cohorts, so it was kind of a mixed bag.

[Vhaidara]

Well, IIRC, the DMG specifically says that followers aren't really meant to be taken into battle. What are 5 first level fighters going to do to help a level 6 fighter? And that's pretty generous on their number. Followers are meant to be off camera, handling a business, or an estate.

[Zeuy]

Followers are free. No feat needed. Follows same rules otherwise.

A cohort is a function of diplomacy. No feat needed. Penalties and bonuses apply to diplomacy roll. Same rules otherwise.

[molten_dragon]

My DM won't just ban it outright but I'm getting the feeling that he wants to. He's said we're not going to meet a lot of people in the near future implying that we have to cross paths with potential cohorts in-game for them to be eligable cohorts. I've always interpreted the feat to be like plot magic as in, one way or another, you attract someone to you who is something like the cohort you want. Maybe they heard of your deeds and get in touch with you. Maybe they're a relative who now wants to reconnect. Maybe they're a penpal who you've been writing to during offline time who has now decided they want to meet you.

So how do you guys handle it?

I handle it different ways depending on the game I'm running.

If it's a low-powered game, or just one where I don't want the complication of people running more than one character, I just ban it.

If it's a high-powered game, and the players can handle two characters each without bogging the game down, I have no problem with it. I let players make their own cohorts, and let them play them within reason. I've tried roleplaying the cohorts myself so that the relationship between cohort and leader is more realistic, but it was just too much work.

In other games, I've had the DM run the cohort, and require you to pick from people you meet in-game.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Keledrath
What are 5 first level fighters going to do to help a level 6 fighter?

Yeah, that point was pretty effectively driven home. :smallfrown:

I only had the one follower to lose, but the other PC had invested a sizable portion of his WBL into his followers' gear and mounts. The player wanted to be an elven prince in exile with his company of loyalist brothers. Sadly, the DM apparently had other ideas.

[BWR]

I've allowed it as mostly flavor. Harkening back to the days of yore when PCs reached Name level, got titles and could build a stronghold and attract followers. I believe this was how the feat was intended to be used. I prefer to throw proper NPC towards the PCs which they can adopt as cohorts through RP and proper story. The feat just makes sure the PCs have a number of followers where the players can leave off most of the hard work of RPing to fate. You can certainly pick up followers by RP alone, and even with Leadership there has to be a reason they want to follow you (being damn powerful and charismatic usually helps). Cohorts are useful but don't bother to try using it as a second, free, PC. Mostly they will be senechals, XOs, etc. for the PC. Trusted, valued, loyal, but mostly busy with making sure the rest of the followers and domain/stronghold/business/whatever run smoothly, not going on adventures for free.
Fortunately, I can trust my players to use Leadership in this fashion and not abuse it.

If ever I run a game where having followers will be a problem, I'll just tell that to my players and I won't have to ban it. I suppose you can consider that a ban.