Leadership - crap, or awesome?

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I've been thinking about the Leadership feat - is it worth it? Is it underpowered or broken?

I'm not even slightly an optimiser, but I get that there are some feats, power, spells, options, etc., that look good at first, but in fact suck badly - and there are some that are sneakily overpowered.
So which one is Leadership? Or is it perfectly balanced?

[Snowbluff]

Why not both?

It's still strong.

[ComaVision]

It's not binary, it really depends on what you get as your cohort. You could have a Samurai or you could have Pun-Pun.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

If your DM makes your cohort, it's probably balanced but can vary wildly. If you build your own (optimized) cohort, it ranges from awesome to overpowered. In any case, check with your DM first.

[Elricaltovilla]

It is exactly as useful as playing two characters at once, to the degree and design limited by your DM. So it can range from free extra carry weight to dual god wizard shenanigans.

[Flickerdart]

I've been thinking about the Leadership feat - is it worth it? Is it underpowered or broken?

I'm not even slightly an optimiser, but I get that there are some feats, power, spells, options, etc., that look good at first, but in fact suck badly - and there are some that are sneakily overpowered.
So which one is Leadership? Or is it perfectly balanced?
You know how having one character is awesome? Well, imagine having two. All the benefits of more dudes (action economy advantage, extra HP to soak attacks) and disadvantages of more dudes (longer turns, ineffectiveness in very tight spaces) apply.

Leadership is strongest when you use it to enhance the power of your primary character. A fighter with Leadership for a dragon mount or a spellcaster that gets an exotic monster to buff up for fights will be rocking out like a pro. A rogue can get an artificer cohort who stays in the city and crafts new magic items for the rogue to use on his adventures. A cleric cohort with the Community domain can cast Greater Status on your party in the morning, and then sit on his porch smoking a pipe until someone needs heals or buffs. A stealthy cohort (such as a beguiler) or a cohort with remote sensing (such as a binder or wizard) can scout ahead and let the party know what they'll be facing.

Leadership is weakest when you detract from your primary character to make the additional one viable. Cohorts don't get their own WBL, so you'll have to equip them out of your own share of the treasure. They are also lower level than you, making them inappropriate for an independent role in combat because their attacks and defenses will be weaker than expected for your level.

Followers are pretty much 100% useless mechanically, unless your DM lets you give them PC levels and start a temple in your own name or something.

[Rubik]

Followers are pretty much 100% useless mechanically, unless your DM lets you give them PC levels and start a temple in your own name or something.I agree with the rest of this post, but the above part isn't necessarily true. It's not terribly difficult to optimize them mechanically for direct use, whether it be crafting shenanigans or using bardic and crowd buffs (and debuffs, to groups of foes) to boost damage and accuracy for archery (along with volleys, if you choose to go that route). Also, Tucker's kobolds.

It takes a bit of doing -- not even that much, really -- but you can make them viable.

[Hiro Quester]

It also doesn't take much doing to make them completely game-breaking, too. That's why many DMs ban the feat.

For example a TWF Skirmisher with a dragonfire inspiration bard cohort, adding 6d6 (or more) to every attack can be a devastating increase in power.

And we're not even talking about how a seriously charismatic PC (well optimized bard, or a very charismatic cleric, for example) can have a scary-high leadership score, and attract a huge community of followers. (Ideally they should establish a home base -e.g. A temple and stay out of the way of gameplay. But they can generate a serious stream of income or artifacts, too.)

As a DM, I'd want to be able to talk to the player about sensible limits, etc. before allowing the feat.

[Milodiah]

I personally don't believe in Leadership, not because it's broken, not because it's underpowered, not because it's overpowered (because I will agree it can be all three at different situations). I just don't like the concept that you have to spend a feat for the DM to allow you to have dudes that follow your orders.

Have gold? Hire some mercs.
On an important quest from the king himself? See if he'll give you a royal decree that lets you hijack requisition some of the city's garrison.
Became the leader of a highly influential martial organization? Guess what, you have warriors ready to follow you to the death.
Great persuasive abilities? Maybe you can talk the villagers into actually taking up arms and following you into the lair of the trolls that have been eating their livestock/children/spouses/crops/houses/real estate.

If you show up at my table with the Leadership without a reasonable explanation for why these people are following you, you lose the feat and the followers (though obviously you get to pick a new one). If you show up with the feat with a reasonable explanation, you lose the feat, get a replacement feat, and keep the contingent.

[Doctor Awkward]

You play a second character.

It doesn't matter how "optimized" that character is. It's doubling your action economy every round of combat.

It's the single most powerful feat in all of 3.5.
Period.

[Eloel]

You play a second character.

It doesn't matter how "optimized" that character is. It's doubling your action economy every round of combat.

It's the single most powerful feat in all of 3.5.
Period.

I disagree. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#epicSpellcasting)

[Tvtyrant]

I disagree. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#epicSpellcasting)

my computer centered that link on epic toughness and I recoiled in disbelief.

[OldTrees1]

Leadership is great for its intended purpose (having rules for the magnitude of your following) but bad for optimization (if optimized slightly, leadership is overpowered).

In other words: Leadership is too powerful if you want it for power but reasonable if you don't want it for power.

[Doctor Awkward]

I disagree. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#epicSpellcasting)

That feat only affects spellcasters. Leadership can be taken on any character. There is no other one feat that adds so much to literally any build you can make.

[Flickerdart]

Leadership is great for its intended purpose (having rules for the magnitude of your following) but bad for optimization (if optimized slightly, leadership is overpowered).

In other words: Leadership is too powerful if you want it for power but reasonable if you don't want it for power.
What reason could there be to attract a following if not for power? Nobody takes Leadership except to improve the extent that they can affect the world, which is what power is.

[Tvtyrant]

What reason could there be to attract a following if not for power? Nobody takes Leadership except to improve the extent that they can affect the world, which is what power is.

I can think of a few. Someone wants a hometown type base for their party to chill in, so they take leadership and fill up an abandoned castle they cleared of Grell. They don't need the castle, they don't gain much from it, but it is a cool thing to have. Or an airship crew where they want a large crew of NPCs they can actually get to know instead of more potent but less permanent mercenaries. Even a Wizard guild or Knightly order needs servants, and having the DM roleplay them as adoring individuals instead of hired labor feels better to the player.

[Boost]

I'd propose an additional appeal to the leadership feat that doesn't seem to have been discussed yet: The potential usefulness of having an army of followers to do your bidding.

In a dungeon, this would be all but useless. A few dozen (or hundreds, with a high enough score) of mostly level 1-3 followers won't do much good against high-CR foes, regardless of if the followers have PC classes or they're Warriors and Experts. They would get wiped out by a single dragon's breath weapon or a nice fireball or three.

However, in a campaign that isn't strictly based on dungeons, having that many minions around can be VERY handy. Need to search for something that could be hidden anywhere in town? Send search parties out to scour every corner. Need to do some crowd control on a townful of commoners? Send your horde of minions in to establish martial law. Need someone to haul a huge treasure hoard back to town? You've got a caravan full of strong backs.

Then imagine the RP uses of showing up at the evil Baron's doorstep with a few hundred soldiers behind you, then demanding he come out and negotiate. Or using your soldiers as leverage to get a better reward for an upcoming quest: "Yes, your majesty, we'll rescue your kidnapped daughter... but I'll need enough gold to cover food and expenses for all of my men."

Or another possibility: profit! I one time used the Leadership feat to establish control over a parcel of land where I found a deposit of silver. My followers were a combination of miners digging up the silver, people delivering the ore to the nearby city, and soldiers protecting the mine and the trade route. I was able to use the profits from the mining operation to build a fortress and tower, and I turned myself into a warlord/wizardess. Sure, I mostly went into battles with just me and my cohort, but I was still benefiting from all the other followers.

[Snowbluff]

I disagree. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#epicSpellcasting)

You know what's better than epic spellcasting? A cohort who can do it for you.

[Flickerdart]

I can think of a few. Someone wants a hometown type base for their party to chill in, so they take leadership and fill up an abandoned castle they cleared of Grell. They don't need the castle, they don't gain much from it, but it is a cool thing to have. Or an airship crew where they want a large crew of NPCs they can actually get to know instead of more potent but less permanent mercenaries. Even a Wizard guild or Knightly order needs servants, and having the DM roleplay them as adoring individuals instead of hired labor feels better to the player.
Those all make the PC more powerful, though. A loyal populace or crew is a great asset.

[OldTrees1]

What reason could there be to attract a following if not for power? Nobody takes Leadership except to improve the extent that they can affect the world, which is what power is.
I see I need to clarify: I was talking to the player not to the character.

Player1: I want something powerful -> Leadership is powerful -> Ends up overpowered
Player2: I want to play a Leader -> Leadership gives me rules for magnitude -> Ends up balanced

[eggynack]

That feat only affects spellcasters. Leadership can be taken on any character. There is no other one feat that adds so much to literally any build you can make.
Broad applicability is a good thing, but it doesn't impact the actual power level of a feat. In other words, when assessing a feat, you don't multiply a feat's power level in use by the percent of characters who can take it to find its true power level. You assess it given the assumption that it's being used by the character in question. Were it otherwise, then natural spell would be considered incredibly weak, when it is very much not.

As for the core question here, it's always pretty powerful, because even a monk cohort and a bunch of commoner followers add more to a build than a good number of feats, but at the same time, leadership is quite possibly the feat in the game with the widest gap between its floor and its ceiling. After all, it is perhaps the only feat whose scale of uses has its own tier system. Pick a monk cohort on a druid, and you'll at least have an extra friendly meat sack to turn time into death, but you could do a lot better with your feat. Pick a druid cohort on a monk, and you just selected a feat that is likely more powerful than the entire rest of your build put together, no matter what you're doing with it. Leadership is rarely going to be crap, but it can very easily be awesome.

[Snowbluff]

Broad applicability is a good thing, but it doesn't impact the actual power level of a feat. In other words, when assessing a feat, you don't multiply a feat's power level in use by the percent of characters who can take it to find its true power level. You assess it given the assumption that it's being used by the character in question. Were it otherwise, then natural spell would be considered incredibly weak, when it is very much not.

100% of characters can use epic magic if they have leadership at level 23?

[Flickerdart]

I see I need to clarify: I was talking to the player not to the character.

Player1: I want something powerful -> Leadership is powerful -> Ends up overpowered
Player2: I want to play a Leader -> Leadership gives me rules for magnitude -> Ends up balanced
This is such a flimsy and artificial distinction that I hesitate to even formulate a coherent response.

[eggynack]

100% of characters can use epic magic if they have leadership at level 23?
I think you need epic leadership to have cohorts of that level, but I guess so, yeah.

[OldTrees1]

This is such a flimsy and artificial distinction that I hesitate to even formulate a coherent response.

Seriously? You don't notice how intent changes the goals and magnitude of investment in optimization? If I just want a leader I would have charisma and the leadership feat. If I selected leadership because it is powerful then I would be trying to customize my cohort/followers to maximized my combat power. The distinction in the intent is a good barometer about how powerful leadership will be in the hands of that player with that intent.

[Troacctid]

What reason could there be to attract a following if not for power? Nobody takes Leadership except to improve the extent that they can affect the world, which is what power is.

That's not a very good standard. You can improve the extent to which you can affect the world by taking Track or Improved Sunder or a level of Samurai. Does that mean you're taking them for power?

[Flickerdart]

That's not a very good standard. You can improve the extent to which you can affect the world by taking Track or Improved Sunder or a level of Samurai. Does that mean you're taking them for power?
You're taking them to become a more powerful tracker or sunderer, yes. Nobody takes feats for reasons other than becoming better at a thing, and that's an increase in power.

[Eloel]

You're taking them to become a more powerful tracker or sunderer, yes. Nobody takes feats for reasons other than becoming better at a thing, and that's an increase in power.

Umm, Vow of Poverty. You either become worse, or you get a net increase of 0 power with the feat.

[Flickerdart]

Umm, Vow of Poverty. You either become worse, or you get a net increase of 0 power with the feat.
Vow of Poverty was never intended to be an alternative to having stuff. It is an alternative to having no items. You take VoP to increase your power as a person who owns no property.

[Snowbluff]

Vow of Poverty was never intended to be an alternative to having stuff. It is an alternative to having no items. You take VoP to increase your power as a person who owns no property.

And for your celestial animal companion.

[Abithrios]

I don't think I would allow the leadership feat. If I want multiple PCs per player , I would let them do that for free and let them be the same level.

The cost of one feat is just too poor an estimate of its value.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't think I would allow the leadership feat. If I want multiple PCs per player , I would let them do that for free and let them be the same level.

The cost of one feat is just too poor an estimate of its value.

I am willing to give it to tier 4 classes as long as their cohort and followers are tier 4 and below.

[Flickerdart]

The cost of one feat is just too poor an estimate of its value.
Most feats offer a vastly disproportionate benefit to the scarcity of feats as a resource.

[Hiro Quester]

I am willing to give it to tier 4 classes as long as their cohort and followers are tier 4 and below.

Actually, that's a good modifier. It can balance things out a bit , esp when a tier 4PC plays with a bunch of higher tier PCs.