My DM is allowing leadership

[Reprimand]

So my DM was dumb enough to allow leadership and I'm trying to explain why this is a bad idea through playtesting this with him.

My character for this test is a rogue 4/wizard 1/Unseen Seer 10/Abjurant Champion 5 and were using fractional Bab so my base attack is +16. My character revolves around knowing the enemy through divination and attacking from a distance or one-shotting enemies by being invisible. Can anyone help me think of a cohort to back him up and help prove this a terrible idea to him. The cohort is not allowed to take leadership though. I was thinking something that can also be stealthy like a beguiler or an illusionist to complement my strengths.

Ideas or combos are welcome as well.

Please keep the cheese sane so no gate/wish/ice assassin spamming etc.

[OldTrees1]

Wait, wait, wait. Your DM is giving you the opportunity to use Leadership as intended and your response is to prove that Leadership can be broken when exploited?

Why not just become the head of a local thieves guild(using leadership) rather than abuse leadership?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Play nice.

[Threadnaught]

I agree with those two.

Though, if you absolutely must get your DM to put a cap on Leadership's power, convince him to do what I'm doing, house rule it so it's limited to building Affiliations and a Cohort, who is the main contact within the Affiliation.


Unless you have your DM's blessing to use all kinds of broken, because they're running that kind of Campaign, it's bad form to break a game.

[IIzak]

I agree with the advice above. That being said, IMO the class that breaks Leadership the most for your cohort is artificer. Artificers literally get to make every single magic item in the game. Get creative. Have him pump out potions for your followers to drink and magic items for them to use, or pimp out yourself and your party members with super cheap magic items. And you don't even need to bring him into combat with you or risk him. Simply let him set up shop in a laboratory and have him go hog wild.

[WhamBamSam]

My go-to Cohort is a Blink Dog or Beguiler (the Rat thing from Shining South, Alter Self-ing into a Blink Dog via Assassin or Thrall of Juiblex or something with Assume Supernatural Ability or Metamorphic Transfer) Shadow Pouncer. It won't break the game (probably, it depends whether 4 Shadow Pounces per round is going to be overpowered at your table), but it will be reasonably strong and lots of fun.

[Reprimand]

Unless you have your DM's blessing to use all kinds of broken, because they're running that kind of Campaign, it's bad form to break a game.

No. No. I'm trying to save him from a table of other players abusing the living hell out of leadership by showing him what CAN be done with it. BEFORE it's implemented into our game.

[Beowulf DW]

No. No. I'm trying to save him from a table of other players abusing the living hell out of leadership by showing him what CAN be done with it. BEFORE it's implemented into our game.

The question is will it be done? Is this that kind of table? If not, you need to let your DM play the way he wants. Otherwise you're potentially ruining the character concept of players. What about the guy that wants to play a fighter riding a young dragon? What about the gal that wants to be the head of a guild of assassins?

[atemu1234]

No. No. I'm trying to save him from a table of other players abusing the living hell out of leadership by showing him what CAN be done with it. BEFORE it's implemented into our game.

Then why no cheese?

[Reprimand]

I mean limiting the obvious ones you can do with a single character anyway.

@Beowulf I didn't mentions this because I didn't think it would come up but the DM is pretty new and I don't think he knows what he's actually getting into so I wanted a chance to give him forwarning and show him some of the stupidity that can be done with this feat.

[SowZ]

I mean limiting the obvious ones you can do with a single character anyway.

@Beowulf I didn't mentions this because I didn't think it would come up but the DM is pretty new and I don't think he knows what he's actually getting into so I wanted a chance to give him forwarning and show him some of the stupidity that can be done with this feat.

Leadership isn't so bad when you can only take your cohort with you and only give your cohort class levels. The one time I used Leadershp it was mostly character fluff. I brought my pixie cohort with me into battle, but all my other followers stayed behind on my giant floating pirate ship that doubled as the parties intermittent base and mode of transport. It was lots of fun and added flavor to my character and the campaign because I didn't care to break the game with it. (I also gave my pixie NPC levels to further nerf myself.)

My point is, yes, you can break the game with leadership. You can also break the game with charging. You can also completely demolish the game with Wild Shape and Natural Spell. But none of these things are inherently game breaking. Responsible players can make character concepts whic utilize their abilities in a reasonable way. (Unless your game is purposefully high-op, which is sounds like it isn't.) D&D is an easy game to break wide open. If your DM bans everything that could break the game, you will soon have very little to work with.

That being said, I understand perfectly why most DMs ban leadership. It's extraordinarily easy to break the game with that feat.

[Threadnaught]

No. No. I'm trying to save him from a table of other players abusing the living hell out of leadership by showing him what CAN be done with it. BEFORE it's implemented into our game.

House rule it then, either the one I'm using, Classes of Tier 3 or below (4, 5 and 6), or they're not allowed to travel with their Cohort/Followers.

Or better yet, force convince him to come here at gunpoint on his own free will and to check out a thread based on Rudisplorking Leadership. If he sees what it can do when it's optimized, maybe he'll limit the things players are allowed to use it for.

[Reprimand]

Leadership isn't so bad when you can only take your cohort with you and only give your cohort class levels. The one time I used Leadershp it was mostly character fluff. I brought my pixie cohort with me into battle, but all my other followers stayed behind on my giant floating pirate ship that doubled as the parties intermittent base and mode of transport. It was lots of fun and added flavor to my character and the campaign because I didn't care to break the game with it. (I also gave my pixie NPC levels to further nerf myself.)

My point is, yes, you can break the game with leadership. You can also break the game with charging. You can also completely demolish the game with Wild Shape and Natural Spell. But none of these things are inherently game breaking. D&D is an easy game to break wide open. If your DM bans everything that could break the game, you will soon have very little to work with.

That being said, I understand perfectly why most DMs ban leadership. It's extraordinarily easy to break the game with that feat.

I mean I'm not even trying to make him ban the feat, I just want him to be able to make an informed decision is all.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No. No. I'm trying to save him from a table of other players abusing the living hell out of leadership by showing him what CAN be done with it. BEFORE it's implemented into our game.

Are you also going to get him to ban wizards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, artificers, archivists, etc.?

[WeaselGuy]

I think an easier way to show him broken leadership is to use a more mundane character, instead of a T1 wizard. Wizards can do it all anyways, without a cohort. Show him what happens when your Monk or Fighter has their own pocket spellcaster buffing them to the 9 Hells and back, and now suddenly when the DM thought the monk would be powerless against a flying dragon, that monk is now in it's face going to town with melee attacks.

[OldTrees1]

I mean I'm not even trying to make him ban the feat, I just want him to be able to make an informed decision is all.

Then do it the easy way. Point out the math behind Action Economy (maybe using a vastly simplified version) while also mentioning the good that the feat can be used for(Guilds, Associations, Keeps, ...).

[dascarletm]

The main problems with leadership is...

1. Game Slowery: The same ol' as any minionmancer. More turns=more time players without the feat sit around.
2. Artificery: Oh, yes I just happen to have DOUBLE the items I would have.
3. Personal Gimpery Buffery: Ah yes, sir wizard. Please prepare all my buffs, and refresh them once they are running out.
4. Talking to Yourselfery: "Jeff! You sure are brave!"
"Why yes, I am Squire McWizardpants. Thank you for noticing!"
"I wish I was like you, you are handsome, charming, brave..."
"Let's get moving, the treasure is supposed to be..."
"YOU SHUT UP OTHER PC WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT JEFF THE GREAT!"


Really just the first 3 though.

[Kalirren]

I mean, I'm not even trying to make him ban the feat, I just want him to be able to make an informed decision is all.

Your agenda seems ill-considered. You say you're trying to make him make an informed decision. Exactly what information are you trying to provide your DM with? If your response to being allowed to use Leadership is to abuse Leadership to show that it can be abused for no reason other than to show him that it can be abused because you presume this is information he lacks, you will make him ban the feat.

Sounds to me like you're having some sort of weird ego issue of the form, "Why are you DM, when even I know that no sane DM would ever choose to allow Leadership...?" News flash: Plenty of sane DMs allow Leadership. My personal take on it is that leadership and the acquisition of skilled minions' services is a natural step of PChood. When PCs naturally undergo the process of building/engaging with an organization, they shouldn't even have to take a feat for it. You don't make them take either feats or flaws for superiors, so why subordinates?

[RoboEmperor]

1. Play a mundane
2. Get a wizard cohort
3. Take everyone's jobs away. Suddenly you're BFCing every single battle, and dealing all the damage with your mundane, and crafting every item you can with the wizard, and buffing yourself to high heavens with the wizard. You can literally solo the game, and the other players will cry that you're too strong.

The main problem with a polymorphed wizard is that he outfights the fighter, which makes the fighter cry. So use leadership to make some other guy cry.

[Talothorn]

So my DM was dumb enough to allow leadership and I'm trying to explain why this is a bad idea through playtesting this with him.

Play a wizard 20, and have all commoners as your followers and cohort. Then be a jerk and break the game with a wizard 20, never even using the followers. Then, when your DM realizes how dumb he was for allowing tier one classes and munchkins in the same game, tell him to imagine how much worse it could have been if you had further abused his allowing leadership. He will wise up and either run E6, ban every optional rule that can add fun to character concepts, ban all tier 1 and 2 classes, or just realize he isn't cut out for DMing and quit, and you can find a strict DM who isn't so dumb.

Or, you could play within the accepted power level of your table, like a decent human being, and everyone can have fun.


My character for this test is a rogue 4/wizard 1/Unseen Seer 10/Abjurant Champion 5 and were using fractional Bab so my base attack is +16.

Leadership is not the broken part of this build, or are you also trying to get him to ban these prestige classes as well? Why is your scry and die Abjurant Champion who likes "one shotting enemies while invisible" wasting a feat on Leadership anyway?

[Scorponok]

I've used Leadership before in my game, with veteran players playing. They weren't the type that wanted to break a campaign so it worked out pretty well.

The only thing I don't like about it is the part that says:
"The cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP."

We usually just count it as part of the XP if they get involved in a battle.

[goto124]

4. Talking to Yourselfery: "Jeff! You sure are brave!"
"Why yes, I am Squire McWizardpants. Thank you for noticing!"
"I wish I was like you, you are handsome, charming, brave..."
"Let's get moving, the treasure is supposed to be..."
"YOU SHUT UP OTHER PC WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT JEFF THE GREAT!"


This is why you don't play more than 1 character at the same time :smallbiggrin:

[Auron3991]

If you are dead set on showing off a broken build, have a druid. Then make sure your animal companion takes leadership (due to the HD increase). Proceed to get two armies, one of whatever animals you want, as long as it includes right around 32 squirrels (yes, you are breaking out the grapple and flanking rules here), and one of whatever animals your animal companion can get.

Another option is to get a bunch of wizard/sorcerers with improved initiative as followers.

Or you could just trust the other players in the group. Whichever seems saner to you.

[RoboEmperor]

I've used Leadership before in my game, with veteran players playing. They weren't the type that wanted to break a campaign so it worked out pretty well.

The only thing I don't like about it is the part that says:
"The cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP."

We usually just count it as part of the XP if they get involved in a battle.

What's stopping you from playing 2 PCs without leadership?

[Invader]

Wouldn't it be better to just explain that leadership can be really broken and talk with the table to prevent it from ruining the game? As a bunch of other people said, leadership can be perfectly fine unless you purposely try and break the game with it.

Alternatively are you showing everything else in the game that can be abused just in case or does it make more sense to handle it when the situation arises?

[Coidzor]

So my DM was dumb enough to allow leadership and I'm trying to explain why this is a bad idea through playtesting this with him.

My character for this test is a rogue 4/wizard 1/Unseen Seer 10/Abjurant Champion 5 and were using fractional Bab so my base attack is +16. My character revolves around knowing the enemy through divination and attacking from a distance or one-shotting enemies by being invisible. Can anyone help me think of a cohort to back him up and help prove this a terrible idea to him. The cohort is not allowed to take leadership though. I was thinking something that can also be stealthy like a beguiler or an illusionist to complement my strengths.

Ideas or combos are welcome as well.

Please keep the cheese sane so no gate/wish/ice assassin spamming etc.

Well, the easy thing to do would be to have an artificer with cost reduction (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1000.0) out the wazoo allowing your character to basically just use bling as toilet paper.

And would showcase the cohort's impact more directly than a scry-and-die skill gish, in that you can trivialize gear expenditures without actually having to spend any build resources beyond the one feat so you can devote your build resources to doing your shtick. :smallconfused:

[Solaris]

Woukdnt it be better to just explain that leadership can be really broken and talk with the table to prevent it from ruining the game? As a bu ch of other people said, leadership can be perfectly fine unless you purposely try and break the game with it.

Alternatively are you showing g everything else in the game that can be abused just in case or does it make more sense to handle it when the situation arises?

I like this response, and the first two posts in the thread. This is a good, not antisocial, not cruel, not game-breaking-for-the-sake-of-showing-your-superiority response. I'm sorry, Reprimand, but there's simply no way to parse "Breaking his game for his own good" that doesn't come out looking... poorly. You don't need to show him anything, least of all by ruining everyone else's fun. Telling him will suffice, and then showing how Leadership can be done right to enhance the game rather than break it.

[eggynack]

I'm not really sure why you need an elaborate test or complicated combos for this. It's a feat that lets you get a second character. If you can select and optimize that second character, which it looks like you can in this case, they're going to be about as powerful as your first character, which means a nearly straight doubling of power. Maybe even more than double, if you consider the value of the action economy.

In this particular case, your base character isn't even all that optimal, so it's very possible that your single feat will be more powerful than anything else about your character. Pick a tier one character of any kind as cohort, and play it with some level of good decision making, and your less advanced caster will be completely overshadowed. That's a thing ludicrous on the face of it, and you should tell your DM that. If he's fine with that outcome, well, there ya go.

[Scorponok]

What's stopping you from playing 2 PCs without leadership?

Forgot to mention, another caveat to the rule was, the DM controls the actions of the NPC cohorts during RP, but the player with the leadership controls their actions during battle. And it has to make sense. A PC took an NPC as a cohort who had been adventuring with the group awhile. Another player took out an ad at the local tavern asking to interview people for the position. It worked out pretty well.

[Luckmann]

Honestly, yeah, rules as written, it's abusable, but the GM only really needs to introduce a single house rule.

Do broken crap and you will be broken.

As was said by others, the issue isn't really if Leadership is potentially broken or not, but whether it will break the game or not.

And mostly it really shouldn't, unless the players are terrible people and actively seeks to abuse it.

[Reprimand]

Wouldn't it be better to just explain that leadership can be really broken and talk with the table to prevent it from ruining the game? As a bunch of other people said, leadership can be perfectly fine unless you purposely try and break the game with it.

Alternatively are you showing everything else in the game that can be abused just in case or does it make more sense to handle it when the situation arises?

Again I'm not playing IN the game I'm showing him through playtesting it beforehand with him to explain it.

I just want some good examples I can run him through to explain why this isn't a good idea I honestly hate how everyone is assuming I'm ruining the game for everyone else.

Bottom line is he's a very NEW DM I don't feel he knows what he's getting himself into so I want to HELP him make an INFORMED DECISION by letting him know WHY this feat is open to abuse by SHOWING him by PLAYTESTING it. So I wanted EXAMPLES of how it's open to ABUSE so I can set up some SCENARIOS so he can make his OWN DECISION while being AWARE of the CONSEQUENCES.

[eggynack]

I'm still not all that sure what needs explaining. It's a second character, and also a bunch of other lesser characters. The path to borkedness isn't exactly a difficult one to travel down, or one complicated to comprehend. I mean, seriously, you're running a 20th level character without 9th level spells. Make your cohort a character with 9th level spells, and he'll be more powerful than your main character to a ridiculous degree. Straight wizard is always a good choice, maybe running shapechange or gate or whatever. Druid can work too, cause they also get shapechange. At some point though, proving overpoweredness here relies less on leadership and more on just constructing a really powerful character. Ultimately, if you construct a second character less powerful than your first, then it's trivial to construct a third character that overpowers the whole combination, thus making the power of leadership almost incidental.

[Reprimand]

I'm still not all that sure what needs explaining. It's a second character, and also a bunch of other lesser characters. The path to borkedness isn't exactly a difficult one to travel down, or one complicated to comprehend. I mean, seriously, you're running a 20th level character without 9th level spells. Make your cohort a character with 9th level spells, and he'll be more powerful than your main character to a ridiculous degree. Straight wizard is always a good choice, maybe running shapechange or gate or whatever. Druid can work too, cause they also get shapechange. At some point though, proving overpoweredness here relies less on leadership and more on just constructing a really powerful character. Ultimately, if you construct a second character less powerful than your first, then it's trivial to construct a third character that overpowers the whole combination, thus making the power of leadership almost incidental.

Your a new DM who is suddenly having to keep track of 100+ new npcs and what their doing constantly whether they succeed/fail etc. That's a lot of work.

even just the level 1 commoners is a lot of work and this is his first game, he struggles to keep up with normal D&D and now they wants to introduce almost equal level NPCs and a bunch of lower level npcs it's alot of paper work not to mention what other players will do to his game.

[eggynack]

Your a new DM who is suddenly having to keep track of 100+ new npcs and what their doing constantly whether they succeed/fail etc. That's a lot of work.

even just the level 1 commoners is a lot of work and this is his first game, he struggles to keep up with normal D&D and now they wants to introduce almost equal level NPCs and a bunch of lower level npcs it's alot of paper work not to mention what other players will do to his game.
That seems like a completely separate issue from any balance concerns, and doesn't really require a playtest. Really, the ideal solution is to just have the player take loose control over the NPC's, within bounds of reasonableness. Thus, the decision to engage or not engage in paperwork would rest on the players, rather than the DM. Of course, if the DM does want to run everything directly, that's his prerogative, and I don't see a reason to interfere. Either way, constructing an optimal cohort doesn't seem particularly convincing where the issue of book keeping is concerned.

[OldTrees1]

Again I'm not playing IN the game I'm showing him through playtesting it beforehand with him to explain it.

I just want some good examples I can run him through to explain why this isn't a good idea I honestly hate how everyone is assuming I'm ruining the game for everyone else.

Bottom line is he's a very NEW DM I don't feel he knows what he's getting himself into so I want to HELP him make an INFORMED DECISION by letting him know WHY this feat is open to abuse by SHOWING him by PLAYTESTING it. So I wanted EXAMPLES of how it's open to ABUSE so I can set up some SCENARIOS so he can make his OWN DECISION while being AWARE of the CONSEQUENCES.

You can accomplish your goal by showing the math behind Action Economy rather than looking for an exploitative synergy build for a playtest.

However since you want an informed decision, make sure you highlight the pros as well as the cons that you are worrying over.

[Threadnaught]

For a new DM, the best advice is to just ban the thing until he feels comfortable enough with his skills as a DM, that he could manage it.

[TheCrowing1432]

It would be a lot better if you just sat and talked with him.

Not create this complex build intent on breaking the game.

[Coidzor]

Are you assistant DMing for him then?

Though, really, if this is the first time he's running anything, I'd suggest talking about the time angle and restricting minionmancy from at least the initial stages of the game so he can get a feel for how quickly the players go through turns without a whole lot of minions cluttering things up and potentially dragging the game to a crawl if there's another new player or someone who just takes forever to do their own turn so having a second character's actions to decide would exacerbate that issue.

That, or having players RP and handle one anothers' cohorts, that's another administrative detail that can help a bit.


You can accomplish your goal by showing the math behind Action Economy rather than looking for an exploitative synergy build for a playtest.

However since you want an informed decision, make sure you highlight the pros as well as the cons that you are worrying over.

I wonder if those treatises managed to survive or get resurrected after Gleemax/339 died... :smallconfused:

Create Pros vs. Cons discussion thread, collate responses as well as links to other pros vs. cons discussion threads, profit?

[Talothorn]

So my DM was dumb enough to allow leadership and I'm trying to explain why this is a bad idea through playtesting this with him.

Allowing leadership doesn't make him dumb, unless the players at the table are abusive anyway. If they are, allowing those players is the mistake.


No. No. I'm trying to save him from a table of other players abusing the living hell out of leadership by showing him what CAN be done with it. BEFORE it's implemented into our game.

Are these the kind of players that abuse the living hell out of all the other options that have been made available? Maybe that is the actual problem.


the DM is pretty new and I don't think he knows what he's actually getting into so I wanted a chance to give him forwarning and show him some of the stupidity that can be done with this feat.

Make sure you show him how everything else can be abused, too.
Tier one classes. Pretty much any spell casting above 4th level spells, but especially invisibility, flight, teleportation, summoning, undead, shapechange/polymorph, and binding.
Psionics
Druids
Divine metamagic.
Diplomacy, Use Magic Device, Use Psionic Device
Kobolds
Templates
Magic Item Creation
Magic Item Purchasing
Sacred Vow feats
Magical Traps
Marshals
Planar Shepherds
Half Orcs
Splat Books
etc...


Again I'm not playing IN the game I'm showing him through playtesting it beforehand with him to explain it.

Please tell me you are not trying to get a DM to disallow options in a game you are not in. I have to assume you don't mean that you are not playing in the game he is allowing leadership in. If you do mean that, and you are trying to take options away from players in a game you are not even playing in, that is awful.


I just want some good examples I can run him through to explain why this isn't a good idea

Show him some gamebreaker forums. That is a great way to teach new DMs what to look out for (FYI, 99% is not Leadership)


Bottom line is he's a very NEW DM I don't feel he knows what he's getting himself into so I want to HELP him make an INFORMED DECISION by letting him know WHY this feat is open to abuse by SHOWING him by PLAYTESTING it. So I wanted EXAMPLES of how it's open to ABUSE so I can set up some SCENARIOS so he can make his OWN DECISION while being AWARE of the CONSEQUENCES.

Why do you think it any more open to abuse than any other options? You want other people to build a case against it, obviously it hasn't been that big a problem. Do YOU have good examples of it being abused, or did you just hear that it was broken and now that's what you are sticking to.
If the DM is "allowing" it, that means someone at the table wants to use it, and you are trying to backdoor take it away. Are you pushing him to ban everything non-core as well, or just the stuff you don't need for your build?

How about you explain how you are afraid this player who wants this option is likely to abuse it.

[goto124]

Is there such thing as 'accidental' abuse?

[Invader]

There's a disconnect in that this a new DM that can't handle leadership but apparently is running a 20th lvl campaign with the type of players that would abuse leadership yet they haven't abused anything else yet? But to reiterate what's already been stated a dozen times, explain how having an extra free tier 1 caster with 9ths is overpowered for 1 feat. That's really the beginning and end of the explanation he should need.

[nyjastul69]

I mean I'm not even trying to make him ban the feat, I just want him to be able to make an informed decision is all.

You should probably inform your DM that players do not build or control NPC's. Those decisions are entirely the DM's. That would be a very good starting point. That is assuming your DM has not already told you that you may do so.

[LooseCannoneer]

1) Play a character that abuses a high Leadership score.

2) Make your cohort a sorcerer.

Give them Leadership.

4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 until the cohort chain doesn't qualify.

5) Make every follower an Adept.

6) Conga line of magic missile.

[nyjastul69]

1) Play a character that abuses a high Leadership score.

2) Make your cohort a sorcerer.

Give them Leadership.

4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 until the cohort chain doesn't qualify.

5) Make every follower an Adept.

6) Conga line of magic missile.


Your number 2) is an assumption that does not fit with RAW. Everything after that, whether numbered, or not, also fails.

[LooseCannoneer]

Your number 2) is an assumption that does not fit with RAW. Everything after that, whether numbered, or not, also fails.

The player may try to attract a cohort of a particular class, race, or alignment. Just keep trying until you find a CHA-based caster.

[nyjastul69]

The player may try to attract a cohort of a particular class, race, or alignment. Just keep trying until you find a CHA-based caster.

The player may try. They may or may not succeed. I fail to see your point.

[Coidzor]

The player may try. They may or may not succeed. I fail to see your point.

You don't see how it rather shows the DM's hand, and a rather heavy one at that, to completely block a player getting a cohort remotely similar to what they want? :smallconfused:

Or that the DM being heavy-handed in the first place doesn't fit with the scenario in question that the proposal was made in response to? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

The DM being heavy-handed is less of a solution for the potential problems of Leadership and more a separate problem in its own right, so I cannot really endorse recommending that strategy to Reprimand as a proposal.

Edit: We'd need some kind of fairly concrete strategy to make that kind of sell anyway, since it seems like it'd require something near a 180 on the DM's perspective to make stick anyway.

[LooseCannoneer]

You don't see how it rather shows the DM's hand, and a rather heavy one at that, to completely block a player getting a cohort remotely similar to what they want? :smallconfused:

Or that the DM being heavy-handed in the first place doesn't fit with the scenario in question that the proposal was made in response to? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

The DM being heavy-handed is less of a solution for the potential problems of Leadership and more a separate problem in its own right, so I cannot really endorse recommending that strategy to Reprimand as a proposal.

That's what I mean. If you allow Leadership but ban any attempt to attract a cohort the players prefer, that's worse than just banning Leadership in the first place.

[Threadnaught]

The player may try. They may or may not succeed. I fail to see your point.

I really enjoy this argument of "Leadership ain't borken cuz there's nothing in it that states the Cohort doesn't just kill the PC."

In that same sense, Wizard isn't overpowered, because there's nothing to guarantee the DM won't twist every single Spell ever against the Wizard. Oh please tell me that's the kind of argument you're going to make.


There are three ways to build a Cohort using Leadership.
1: Player does everything, DM allows/demands rewrite.
2: Player and DM work together to find a balance of power.
3: Player tells the DM what kind of character they want, the DM builds it.

In none of these situations is the player denied a Cohort ingame. They may be denied a Cohort of a certain level, but they're going to find one similar enough to their requirements, that they manage to get one eventually.