Explaining why Leadership is broken to my DM

[Shnigda]

Hey guys,
I was wondering if someone could help me figure out how to explain to my DM that Leadership is broken.
He has just allowed a wizard in the party to take it and the DM isn't very knowledgeable on a ton of 3.5, so any help with how to explain how broken Leadership is would be much appreciated!

NB. I know that it is bad to take something away from a player one you have given it, so any suggestions on limiting the brokenness of Leadership would be appreciated as well!
Also, before anyone suggests I leave the group, I would like to say that I do not want to leave the group. We have a very good dynamic in the group and it works very well, the DM just doesn't know much about broken stuff...

(Also, if he continues to allow Leadership in its RAW form, my backup character may need to have a mirror mephit familiar)

[Bullet06320]

Hey guys,

(Also, if he continues to allow Leadership in its RAW form, my backup character may need to have a mirror mephit familiar)

it would just be easier to go with the mirror mephit now

[noob]

Leadership is not really broken if everyone gets it for free and only if he is a PC(this is called doubling the number of characters and it might be done if the GM thinks that he needs more characters(for example he have only two players))
If you want really want to show broken things there is diplomacy as written with the epic rules do an artificier and make 5 +20 diplomacy items(taking various slots) and use that infusion changing the type of bonus of each item then have maximal diplomacy and a bonus to cha.
Now you have something like 3+100+23= 126 diplomacy so you automatically turn hostile people into friendly people and you can turn non hostile people into slaves(but you can do this only for some time per day(ten minutes per caster level))(http://dndtools.pw/spells/eberron-campaign-setting--12/item-alteration--4928/)

[Darrin]

Ask your DM if he would ever allow a single feat to give your PC:


Extra Standard Action every turn.
Extra Move Action every turn.
80% more HPs

[Brova]

Honestly, in a world where people get to cast simulacrum, planar binding, animate dead, dominate person, Leadership is not broken. It's just a way for people who aren't casters to get some extra tokens.

Now, if your DM banned those spells, then Leadership might be a problem. But even then, it's a totally symmetrical power boost. If you happen to think that not having Leadership makes you too weak, just take Leadership.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Leadership gives you a second character. Experience rewards do not reflect this. That really should be all you need to know. One player now gets to play twice as many characters, without any consequences.

[noob]

Yes and it is why allowing it is reasonable if you think you need more characters in the player team(for example if there is only three players and that the campaign is made for five or that you need many classes for poly-valance)
Without Leadership some gm just ends up giving one character for free to a player.
It is written nearly as a feat that the gm allow to hplayers for having an huger team it is made for being granted case by case.

[Nifft]

It kinda depends.

If someone takes Leadership and uses it to grab a T5 Fighter character, that's not particularly broken.

If someone takes Leadership and uses it to grab a T1 bonus character, which the player then proceeds to play as Double Wizard Team Batman, that's ... yeah. Probably broken.

Since everyone who posts here very quickly learns the optimal usage of Leadership, for us it's basically guaranteed to be broken unless the campaign is tailored to accommodate the feat (e.g. by banning all T1 and T2 classes entirely, or by giving everyone Leadership). For your game, it's not guaranteed to be broken, but whether it's broken or not depends entirely on chance and ignorance.

Chance and ignorance are not a good foundation for game balance.

[OldTrees1]

Hey guys,
I was wondering if someone could help me figure out how to explain to my DM that Leadership is broken.
He has just allowed a wizard in the party to take it and the DM isn't very knowledgeable on a ton of 3.5, so any help with how to explain how broken Leadership is would be much appreciated!

Question:
How is the DM running leadership? Not all DMs run it as "Here build your own NPCsecond PC for use in combat and control their actions entirely". I have found success running it as "You are a strong enough leader that you gain an organization(here are rules for number of followers) and an administrator(the cohort) for while you are off adventuring". It still can be a strong feat but it also can be very RP rich while only being as powerful as Skill Focus(Speak Language) depending on the organization the player creates.

[Twurps]

It kinda depends.

If someone takes Leadership and uses it to grab a T5 Fighter character, that's not particularly broken.

If someone takes Leadership and uses it to grab a T1 bonus character, which the player then proceeds to play as Double Wizard Team Batman, that's ... yeah. Probably broken.

Since everyone who posts here very quickly learns the optimal usage of Leadership, for us it's basically guaranteed to be broken unless the campaign is tailored to accommodate the feat (e.g. by banning all T1 and T2 classes entirely, or by giving everyone Leadership). For your game, it's not guaranteed to be broken, but whether it's broken or not depends entirely on chance and ignorance.

Chance and ignorance are not a good foundation for game balance.

Just because a player CAN break a campaign, doesn't mean he should or even wants to do so. The wizard's player might very well choose not to be overpowered without being ignorant.

As for the OP's question: What Grod said pretty much covers it. (And might be a problem even if it's not broken).
Although you haven't given any information on the rest of the party. If the rest of the party is a summon-focussed druid and a minionmancer, some extra actions for the Wizard's player don't sound so bad.

[SkipSandwich]

I've considered adjusting Leadership such that all followers AND cohorts are limited to NPC class levels, with cohorts perhaps gaining special bonuses based on your class levels, like bonus feats and perhaps a weaker version of the Chameleon's Aptitude Focus ability to represent special training.

[Bucky]

The problems have already been described. The simplest fix, however, is for the DM to build the cohorts to be non-broken.

[ericgrau]

Pros: 2nd character

Cons: 2nd character

Honestly it's a great role-playing tool to bring an NPC into the party. If you play it as a 5th party member and that doesn't bother you then it's not that bad at all. If you say zomg he has 2 characters and I only have 1 then I can see why it might bug you. If the 2nd character is a faceless, absolutely obedient source of power support for the wizard and doesn't contribute to the rp fun then that's more annoying. But honestly it's a cooperative game not you vs the wizard + cohort. And it's not really him overshadowing you either; it's more like 2 of your allies overshadow the 1 you.

Also two levels behind is worse than you might thank. Leadership is more like having 1.5 characters. +50% is still nutso if you look at it as adding more power to the player, but not if you look at it as adding another half a party member to the entire group.

Basically the cohort is only broken when you consider it as 100% part of the wizard's character. When you consider it as another party member not so much.

I do think everyone should get leadership automatically, and then I suppose that alleviates power fairness concerns too. But unless it is a personality free automaton that obeys only the whims of its leader I don't see the big issue even if not everyone has it. And even then it's not 100% part of the leader, only closer to that status.

So heck, feel free to get leadership too. Don't get a mirror mephit. Don't tailor your cohort specifically to your character. Do give him personality traits and role-play him. Don't let him do anything suicidal or so forth for you. Don't try to use him to show how broken leadership is by intentionally breaking the game. Do play him effectively. But without using broken tricks nor making him purely a servant of your main character's power.

If the wizard truly is abusing leadership to make a personality free absolutely obedient servant tailored to his main character, then bring that up with the DM. Then the DM may say that he can't build the cohort so precisely to helping his main character, nor will he obey absolutely everything. If the wizard can't handle that then the DM might have to control the cohort as an NPC (who still follows the wizard when reasonable). But it sounds like you have a nice group that doesn't abuse things.

I mean nobody ever tells DMs "Omg, don't let an NPC join the party, that will make the group too powerful and they'll over-run all your encounters! Would you give out a single magic item that increased the 4 man party's power by 25%?! That's so broken."

[Urpriest]

The problems have already been described. The simplest fix, however, is for the DM to build the cohorts to be non-broken.

That doesn't really work, though. Non-broken just means on the same power level as the players, so it still doubles the PC in question.

[Hiro Quester]

Giving the wizard a fighter bodyguard isn't necessarily broken. It depends on the player and the DM working out some guidelines to make sure the game is still fun for everyone.

For instance, the DM should take the cohort as an DM-controlled NPC, that the leader can ask to do things, but who might refuse, have other ideas, chicken out, or just be less than fully compliant. Then the DM can control the balance of encounters without always giving the player two characters to control.

When you consider that this can just be giving the wizard what the party Druid already has: a fighter meat shield companion that is somewhat under his control, it doesn't have to be broken.

But like playing a Druid in a less than fully optimized group, the player with leadership has a lot of responsibility to play in ways that don't break the game or ruin everyone else's fun.

And yes, make the larger group of followers a supporting organization back in town doing crafting, gathering information, providing supplies for the party, etc.

[Sagetim]

Hey guys,
I was wondering if someone could help me figure out how to explain to my DM that Leadership is broken.
He has just allowed a wizard in the party to take it and the DM isn't very knowledgeable on a ton of 3.5, so any help with how to explain how broken Leadership is would be much appreciated!

NB. I know that it is bad to take something away from a player one you have given it, so any suggestions on limiting the brokenness of Leadership would be appreciated as well!
Also, before anyone suggests I leave the group, I would like to say that I do not want to leave the group. We have a very good dynamic in the group and it works very well, the DM just doesn't know much about broken stuff...

(Also, if he continues to allow Leadership in its RAW form, my backup character may need to have a mirror mephit familiar)

Leadership isn't broken. The followers expect to be paid, and the cohort takes an equal share of the loot. Similarly, while the player might be able to request a cohort of a particular class, he doesn't get to determine the build of the cohort, nor does he get to determine the build of the followers. These are people who have been inspired by the player's actions to follow him around and try to help him out. This does not equate to getting an army of combat veterans.

And the higher level you go, the less useful it would be to take those followers into combat. Replacing them takes a lot of time, and they cap out at like...2 level 6's? And the followers can't take the leadership feat (nor can the cohort, cohorts aren't allowed to take feats like leadership).

So before you bust out a mirror mephit and start cracking out simlacrum shenanigans, read all the rules for cohorts, followers, and the leadership as they are written in the DMG. There seems to be quite a bit left out if you're relying just on the SRD. And the character with the leadership feat has to put time and effort into recruiting...and did I mention he has to pay them too?

Edit: Also, while he can give them orders, the npcs gained by the leadership feat are still controlled by the DM. The cohort does not give the player extra actions, the cohort acts on their own initiative following the player's lead to the best of their ability.

And you can hire cohorts without the leadership feat anyway, the feat just guarantees that you find one/one comes and finds you after hearing tales of your amazingness.

Edit the second: Also, if I recall correctly. The rules as written in the dmg leadership followers are limited to npc levels unless they trade out npc levels for character levels at an unfavorable rate. Something like 2 to 1. In other words, the 1st level followers are all npc class levels, the 2nd level followers could be first level character class levels, the fourth level npcs could be second level character levels, and the 6th level npcs could be third level character classes. This may be a memory from 3.0 though, but it's worth reading what's written in the book about it to check.

[noob]

While with diplomacy you could make everyone you have ever met slaves you do not need to pay and which will follow your orders(but they are not under your direct control)
(Ps: do not use mirror mephit as your follower or cohort you should instead use summon monster and make a simulacrum of that mirror mephit then use that simulacrum to make more simulacrum then restart doing this having an exponential number of mirror mephit simulacrum)

[OldTrees1]

That doesn't really work, though. Non-broken just means on the same power level as the players, so it still doubles the PC in question.

That was not what non-broken meant in that sentence. Non-broken referred to "built such that the cohort benefit of Leadership was not broken". Thus, from this post of yours, we know that the cohort would need to be less than a +100%.

[noob]

Or just be a friendly npc who will speak with you of his problems instead of deciding of stabbing you suddenly.

[Shnigda]

Honestly, in a world where people get to cast simulacrum, planar binding, animate dead, dominate person, Leadership is not broken. It's just a way for people who aren't casters to get some extra tokens.

Now, if your DM banned those spells, then Leadership might be a problem. But even then, it's a totally symmetrical power boost. If you happen to think that not having Leadership makes you too weak, just take Leadership.

As far as I know, those spells aren't banned (yet).

Also, the guy taking Leadership is a wizard and is getting his followers to be wizards...

[Grod_The_Giant]

Even if you have a non-optimal cohort, even if it's just a warrior or expert hanging out with you, the feat still grants far, far more benefit than any other feat out there.

[Oryan77]

I let a PC take Leadership in my current campaign for the first time. One big determination as to whether or not it will be problematic is who the player is that is using the feat.

I was ok with this player taking the feat because I know he won't try to abuse it and he is a very reasonable player. So there is trust between us.

Next thing that I did was make sure he knows that I will be making limitation as I see fit. Not because I want to be controlling, but because I want to make sure the feat won't get out of hand in comparison with the other PCs. For starters, only his cohort can adventure with him. Any followers he gets stays at his home caring for his out-of-game needs (land, home, business, property, etc, etc).

Then I made sure he knows that I will create the Cohort. I choose all of his options and hand him the character sheet. I also level him up. I let the player determine what race and class he would like his cohort to be since he is the one allowing the guy to be his cohort, but that is it. Once he was introduced and leveled, the player can make suggestions on what feats, spells, etc, etc the cohort takes, but I have final decision on it. This keeps the player from being able to build a perfectly optimal character to play off of his own PC.

I also told him he doesn't control this character. I roleplay the character. I do let the player run the cohort during encounters, but I can take control of the action if I want. For example, if the PC tried to use the cohort as a meat shield and check dangerous rooms first so that his own PC won't get screwed, the cohort will refuse (politely of course) if he feels the request to be unfair to his own safety. If the PC tries to be a tyrant about it, the cohort can always just leave his service (and the PC takes a hit on his Leadership score). He isn't a slave, and he isn't a moron. He's just a guy that would love to be in the service of a great hero. He still needs to be treated with respect though.

So far this has worked out great. The way I see it, the cohort isn't just benefiting the PC. He benefits the whole group. So the other players don't mind having him around.

[Sagetim]

As far as I know, those spells aren't banned (yet).

Also, the guy taking Leadership is a wizard and is getting his followers to be wizards...

Let's see what the section on followers actually says in the DMG:



Followers
Followers are similar to cohorts, except they’re generally low-level
NPCs. Because they’re generally five or more levels behind the
character they follow, they’re rarely effective in combat. But a
clever player can use them as scouts, spies, messengers, errandrunners,
or guards.
Followers don’t earn experience and thus don’t gain levels.
However, when a character with the Leadership feat (see page
106) attains a new level, the player consults the table in the feat
description to determine if she has acquired more followers, some
of which may be higher level than the existing followers. (You
don’t consult the table to see if your cohort gains levels, however,
because cohorts earn experience on their own.)
Followers don’t demand a share of treasure, although they
depend on the PC they follow to equip them and keep them fed.


So, you'll notice that followers are generally low level npcs. Think about this for a minute. Do npcs generally have character class levels? No. They generally have npc levels. If the DM wants to let him have an army of level 1 wizards, that's up to the DM, but as far as I'm concerned, this feat does not give you an army of things with character class levels.

Now, if the dm allows it, a player might be able to take the time and effort and expense to retrain his followers as...wizards (since he's a wizard and all) but that would require time, expense, and so on, and the end result is that the followers still can't gain xp or levels until they are no longer followers. Might make for a good way to set up a mages academy though.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Also, the guy taking Leadership is a wizard and is getting his followers to be wizards...

If his cohort is also a Wizard there might be issues. Firstly, it's an easy way to almost double your number of spells known: trade spells between spellbooks, with each learning a different list.

Secondly, a Wizard/Wizard tag-team is effectively an entire party in and of itself. That's going to easily overrun most other players in the group (even accidentally) unless A: the cohort is not optimized at all, or B: the cohort is DM controlled.

[Brova]

As far as I know, those spells aren't banned (yet).

Are you playing a caster? Because if you are, just use one of those. Leadership is totally sweet, but planar binding is very close power-wise and can be repeated for credit. One Wizard is useful. Half a dozen Efreet? Nuts.

[SangoProduction]

Leadership in and of itself has greater potential than just about everything out there (even more than Item Familiar, I'd argue). However, potential is not the actual use. For example in my game, we have a cleric, who plays all paladin-like, while also being evangelical about Thor.
He took leadership, which represented the people he was able to convert, and he could reasonably expect to be able to call on, in the case of an emergency, like the city nearby is being invaded by orcs or something. Kind of like a guild affiliation, except it's mostly one-sided, as a benefit of being a feat.
His cohort is an NPC (monk of all things, lol...to be fair, the DM doesn't know just how bad the monk is, and that's fine). If called upon, the monk can help, but it's not a second character for most purposes. And the crazy old guy is kinda funny.
I'd raise it as a problem once it actually becomes one.

[Auron3991]

Druid using leadership to get 32 normal squirrels trained to grapple.

Cohort with its own leadership feat (the game will grind to a halt).

Several lv one wizards with magic missle.

[JyP]

Also, the guy taking Leadership is a wizard and is getting his followers to be wizards...
Then the DM can pull an Ars Magica style scenario on the wizard : all these followers don't appear from a vacuum, surely other high-level wizards can be pissed off if their own apprentices flee to follow some wizard PC. And a high-level wizard council has surely setup some regulations there against "kidnapping" apprentices.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Then the DM can pull an Ars Magica style scenario on the wizard : all these followers don't appear from a vacuum, surely other high-level wizards can be pissed off if their own apprentices flee to follow some wizard PC. And a high-level wizard council has surely setup some regulations there against "kidnapping" apprentices.
And thus the entire campaign warps around one player's build choices. That definitely means it's fair and balanced, right?

tl;dr: Leadership can function in the right party when everyone is prepared for it, but with a DM who "isn't very knowledgeable about 3.5" it's just asking for trouble.

[Urpriest]

That was not what non-broken meant in that sentence. Non-broken referred to "built such that the cohort benefit of Leadership was not broken". Thus, from this post of yours, we know that the cohort would need to be less than a +100%.

How are you going to calibrate that, though? Feats already are pretty widely spread in power level. Is the goal to make it equivalent to Wild Cohort? To Power Attack? To Toughness?

Making the Cohort less powerful than the party isn't exactly a houserule, but it's still very much using the rule in a way not implied by the text. By default, a DM would stat the Cohort at the same power level as the rest of the party, because that's how they would stat most important NPCs. In order for the DM to know to stat the Cohort at a lower power level, they'd have to have some reason to think that Leadership would otherwise be too powerful, but that's something they'd only believe if they thought that Leadership was broken as written!

[OldTrees1]

How are you going to calibrate that, though? Feats already are pretty widely spread in power level. Is the goal to make it equivalent to Wild Cohort? To Power Attack? To Toughness?

Making the Cohort less powerful than the party isn't exactly a houserule, but it's still very much using the rule in a way not implied by the text. By default, a DM would stat the Cohort at the same power level as the rest of the party, because that's how they would stat most important NPCs. In order for the DM to know to stat the Cohort at a lower power level, they'd have to have some reason to think that Leadership would otherwise be too powerful, but that's something they'd only believe if they thought that Leadership was broken as written!

As a DM, I allow Leadership as a mechanic for representing organizations(one of the implied uses). An Cohort with PC levels that is being used as an administrator(aka not an extra PC) tends to end up between Skill Focus(Speak Language) and Wild Cohort in power depending on the player's usage of the organization they create.

So how does one calibrate it? Feats are already spread in power enough that landing inside the range, and having the player be happy with their choice is as precise of calibration as needed from the DM's chair(more precision would be needed from a game author's chair).

However yes, it is important to educate new DMs on "having an extra PC of similar level that aids in combat more than doubles the PC's effectiveness".

On the other hand, "breakable as written" is not the same as "broken as written"(implying everyone that has RAW Leadership is broken) or "broken"(implying everyone that has Leadership is broken). There are RAI ways of using the RAW Leadership material that end up very weak(I wasn't joking about that Skill Focus Speak Languages) yet enjoyable.

[Urpriest]

As a DM, I allow Leadership as a mechanic for representing organizations(one of the implied uses). An Cohort with PC levels that is being used as an administrator(aka not an extra PC) tends to end up between Skill Focus(Speak Language) and Wild Cohort in power depending on the player's usage of the organization they create.

So how does one calibrate it? Feats are already spread in power enough that landing inside the range, and having the player be happy with their choice is as precise of calibration as needed from the DM's chair(more precision would be needed from a game author's chair).

However yes, it is important to educate new DMs on "having an extra PC of similar level that aids in combat more than doubles the PC's effectiveness".

On the other hand, "breakable as written" is not the same as "broken as written"(implying everyone that has RAW Leadership is broken) or "broken"(implying everyone that has Leadership is broken). There are RAI ways of using the RAW Leadership material that end up very weak(I wasn't joking about that Skill Focus Speak Languages) yet enjoyable.

"Broken" just means "in order for the game to run well, this should have been written differently". It's a judgement from the game author's chair, not from the DM's chair. If I have to reset my modem every day, it's broken, even if it works fine otherwise.

[OldTrees1]

"Broken" just means "in order for the game to run well, this should have been written differently". It's a judgement from the game author's chair, not from the DM's chair. If I have to reset my modem every day, it's broken, even if it works fine otherwise.

Leadership is not like a modem that breaks once a day. Leadership is like a modem that works 100% of the time for some and works 0% of the time for others due to which way they use it. This is the nuanced difference between "broken" and "breakable".

Sidenote: Any word representing a judgement about "working/balance" is not exclusive to either the DM's or the Game Author's chair.

This implies 3 things:
1) It has implied uses that ended up with acceptably designed RAW. Therefore not all RAW usages of it are bad. Thus the feat is not broken as written. (Quite an important distinction, especially in light of #2)
2) It has implied uses that ended up with broken RAW. Thus the feat is breakable as written. Therefore DMs should be educated about which of these uses are broken and why they are broken.
3) Leadership having serviceable uses is good enough for the DM's chair but the nonservicable uses are another example of failure from the game author chair.

To say it another way:
If broken means "in order for the game to run well, this should have been written differently" then in the context of a broken feat "a broken feat on a character-> a broken character". Thus if Leadership were "broken" rather than "breakable" by this definition of "broken" then the claim would be "all characters with Leadership are broken meaning they each independently prevent the game from running well". As I have shown this is too extreme a claim since "some characters with Leadership do not prevent the game from running well". Thus why I use the distinction between "broken" and "breakable".

[Brova]

Leadership is not in any meaningful sense "broken". planar binding is broken, because it can be used to gain disproportionate power to the point where "enemies from the MM" are not a meaningful challenge. Ditto shapechange, no XP wish, or ice assassin. Leadership does not make you too powerful to be meaningfully challenged. It's not even creating class imbalance, because everyone can take it.

[Segev]

I'm inclined to agree with you, however I am going to play devil's advocate in order to encourage strengthening the argument.
Leadership is ... not even creating class imbalance, because everyone can take it.

You're right about class not entering into it, here. However, a thing can be broken in its own right and context, independent of anything else. Leadership is a feat. If it is a feat which you should always take, and no other feat competes, it is still broken.

This is relatively easily shown not to be the case: can you name a build for which taking Leadership in place of another feat would make the build weaker overall?

[noob]

The Omniscificer?(you really need your feats for succeeding faster)

[Brova]

You're right about class not entering into it, here. However, a thing can be broken in its own right and context, independent of anything else. Leadership is a feat. If it is a feat which you should always take, and no other feat competes, it is still broken.

This is relatively easily shown not to be the case: can you name a build for which taking Leadership in place of another feat would make the build weaker overall?

That's not broken though. It's just good/useful/optimal. Something isn't broken because it's better than other things. Every character wants a stat boosting item. Does that make Gloves of Dexterity broken? No it doesn't. Or trail rations, or rope, or whatever. Something necessary can only be broken if it is not available to all characters or if it is prohibitively expensive. Honestly, Leadership should cost less if it is going to exist at all.

For clarity, by "broken" I mean "the game cannot function with this as written". Either because it does not work (when do Factotums gain IP?), because it destroys the implied setting/game (hallow is permanent and blocks summons, how do summoners exist?), or because it makes characters powerful to the point of being nearly impossible to challenge (shapechange makes you immune to damage).

[Segev]

Not every character wants Gloves of Dexterity, though. Sure, every character will want a stat-boosting item, but when in the build one gets one compared to other things varies by class, build, and even preference to some degree.

Is this true of Leadership? Does every PC want/need it to be optimal? If so, must/do they all take it at level 6?

[Brova]

Not every character wants Gloves of Dexterity, though. Sure, every character will want a stat-boosting item, but when in the build one gets one compared to other things varies by class, build, and even preference to some degree.

Is this true of Leadership? Does every PC want/need it to be optimal? If so, must/do they all take it at level 6?

I think you're sort of missing the point. Leadership might be overpowered, but it's not broken. The game continues to function if you take Leadership and use it to its full potential (insofar as that is not enabling anything else broken), the game functions. You're just more powerful. Compare that to wishing for a ring of "+infinity to everything, all the abilities". That collapses the game in a way that Leadership never will.

[Nifft]

Please let's not get into a semantics debate about the meaning of broken.

Leadership can be used to create a very large imbalance between different characters, and if the DM allows the players to design & build their own Cohorts, then it can aggravate the power differences which are already present in a party.

- - -

IMHO the best option is to remove the Leadership feat from the game, and instead have a Leadership effect which arises from the party's actions:
- If they establish a Stronghold, they get followers.
- If they perform (in)famous deeds of heroism and/or villainy, they may attract one or more cohorts.
- If they want to go on low-level side-adventures, they probably attract one cohort per player who then forms a scrub party and goes on side-adventures. And that's cool. But it shouldn't cost a Feat each.

Sometimes, the NPCs will come and go. Like, if a high-level Barbarian is going to make war on a traditional enemy of his people, maybe the party will pay a visit to the Barbarian's ancestral homeland, and gather a horde or two of warriors. This army won't last longer than a season or two, and it won't cost anyone a Feat.

[Solaris]

Ordinarily, I fall in on the "Leadership isn't that bad" camp. It can be broken, but so can the T1 classes. While it's easily abused, that's no reason to ban it outright.
Of course, I'm the sort of maniac who likes to give his players Leadership as a bonus feat.

In this circumstance, however, I'm going to have to agree with the fears about Leadership being broken. One of the ways it's very breakable is that it provides the player with additional resources - such as item crafters. If it were a barbarian or some such leading a horde, I wouldn't bat an eyelash at it. Dude needs everything he can get to keep up with the casters, and if having two beatsticks and a bunch of mooks makes him happier about his life choices while the casters are rewriting reality them I'm cool with it.

Having a pile of wizard followers and cohorts, however, is nowhere near the same as having a pile of ablative meat-shields. Everything a wizard can do, they can all do - and not the obvious stuff, like casting spells, but rather the stuff like item creation, spell research, and breaking the economy through any of the myriad options out there.

I wouldn't tell the DM not to do it, and I definitely wouldn't go with the douche move of deliberately breaking Leadership just because someone made the mistake of playing with you. That's seriously not a cool move, and it'd get one of my players uninvited from my table with a quickness. I would, however, speak with both the DM and the player to make sure the player isn't going to break the game.

If, however, you've done that and things still aren't fun for you... well, leave. Don't burn the bridges, don't poison the well, just leave. If it's bad enough that you're tempted to break the game to 'show them a lesson', it's bad enough to walk away from the game and leave the option of returning in the future.

[Nibbens]

Hey guys,
I was wondering if someone could help me figure out how to explain to my DM that Leadership is broken.

1) If your DM allows Leadership, then everyone can take Leadership.
2) If number 1 is true then the DM just went from DMing for 5 people to DMing for 10 people.
2a) While the cohorts are not "people" they are more bodies to fight in combat, as well as more characters to keep track of in terms of RP and character relationships. (Here's a good example pulled from google images of a character relationship graph (https://ludicanalytics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/light-in-august-social-network-organic-disk-sans-unnamed.png). The more characters, you exponentially increase the relationships that exist)
3) If he's ever had difficulty balancing encounters - trying to find that sweet spot of challenge that he's trying to get against the players - then even one Cohort make matters even harder. Multiple Cohorts will break his ability to balance fights entirely.

Lastly, let it be known that I don't believe leadership is broken. I actually believe that it's a legit mechanic and can be balanced - it just takes play-testing and good DM know-how on how to handle it. However, if a DM does not have the know-how or experience with PCs using it, then he should avoid it until he's more comfortable with it. Of course, the only way to become comfortable with it... is to have PCs use it and experience it first hand.

[dascarletm]

1) If your DM allows Leadership, then everyone can take Leadership.
2) If number 1 is true then the DM just went from DMing for 5 people to DMing for 10 people.


For that to be true, the below must be true:

A) All players allowed leadership take leadership.

I'm willing to venture that is not the case.

[Nibbens]

For that to be true, the below must be true:

A) All players allowed leadership take leadership.

I'm willing to venture that is not the case.

True, but DMs should be aware of worst case scenarios. Also, as anyone who's DM'd knows, the worst case scenario for a DM is more likely to occur the more he tries to ignore that worse case scenario - kind of like a Murphy's Law for D&D.

[Brova]

Leadership can be used to create a very large imbalance between different characters, and if the DM allows the players to design & build their own Cohorts, then it can aggravate the power differences which are already present in a party.

This is both true and false. On the one hand, anything which provides more of an opportunity to optimize benefits better optimizers more. On the other hand, it can't give one character any more power than another, because it's available to both of them. On the gripping hand, it can actually provide an opportunity to correct imbalances by giving mundane characters a way to deal with challenges that can't be solved by "big sword".


Of course, I'm the sort of maniac who likes to give his players Leadership as a bonus feat.

That's not maniacal at all. There are two responses to something that is so good everyone takes it. You can either make it free (so players take a unique ability with whatever scarce resource it used to cost) or make it expensive enough to be a tradeoff (so that not everyone takes it). Picking the first route is just as reasonable as picking the second, and a lot easier to balance.


A) All players allowed leadership take leadership.

Yes, but the characters who don't take Leadership are, assuming its power was made clear, choosing to be weaker. While that's not a choice I would make, or one I particularly understand, it is one that can't really be considered in a discussion about whether something is balanced. One could choose to cast simulacrum exclusively to create servants out of duplicates of Commoners, but that does not make it's applications any less broken. The fact that you can choose to play an Expert doesn't make playing a Dread Necromancer broken.

[Nibbens]

The worst case scenario for a DM is more likely to occur the more he tries to ignore that particular worse case scenario.

I hereby dub this as Nibbens' Law....

If I'm allowed to dub my own laws... :/

[TheifofZ]

First, I think you'll find it's actually Finagle's Law, rather than Murphy's. Murphy's law is actually 'If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways will result in catastrophe, than someone will do it.'
Which still applies.

As to the actual topic:
Leadership as a stand alone feat is not automatically broken by default. In terms of linear power, it's actual capability is based entirely on the choices of the one who takes it and the DM that allows it:
As an example, a Fighter takes Leadership to get himself a mount that won't instantly evaporate under him after 5th level so he can do Mounted Combat things, and opts not to take followers at all. This literally lets him do the rest of his build without worrying about losing the thing that makes him functional, and nothing else. This use of the feat is therefor about as low powered as you can get with Leadership.
On the other hand:
A wizard takes another wizard as his cohort, effectively doubling his spells known, spells per day, and spells in combat. He also takes wizards as all his followers.
At best, he's changed the way that combat works entirely, and at worst he's negated the rest of the campaign and made the rest of the party irrelevant.
This use is outright broken.
The easiest way to make sure that it isn't broken is to have the DM limit what you can take get as Cohorts and followers, have the DM control the Cohort and followers, and have the DM control the builds beyond race and class.

Of course D&D has a dozen other ways to get the same effect or worse, as per planar binding/thrallherd/diplomancer/minionmancer etc, but IMO, the DM should always keep a firm hand on any way the party has to generate other party members of any kind. Even a necromancer with commoner zombies in the party changes how the game works, and that's the very lowest kind of minion.

[noob]

Murphy's law is actually 'If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways will result in catastrophe, than someone will do it.'
it seems everyone deforms the base law to ridiculous extents captain Murphy was a development engineer from Wright Field Aircraft Lab who complained that if people were wiring stuff there would be necessarily an wiring error.
Now people made it more and more vague and removed precision until it became "Anything that can possibly go wrong, does" which should not be called Murphy law since Murphy never said it or wrote it.

[TheifofZ]

it seems everyone deforms the base law to ridiculous extents captain Murphy was a development engineer from Wright Field Aircraft Lab who complained that if people were wiring stuff there would be necessarily an wiring error.
Now people made it more and more vague and removed precision until it became "Anything that can possibly go wrong, does" which should not be called Murphy law since Murphy never said it or wrote it.

It wasn't that they removed the precision of it; People associated Murphy's Law with Finagle's Law, (the law that states 'The perversity of the universe tends towards the maximum') due to the high compatibility of the two.
From there, association and human failing took over. Murphy is easier and catchier to remember than Finagle, but Finagle's law is more people friendly.
Finagle's Law doesn't necessarily mean that anything that can go wrong will. Instead it means that if something can go wrong, it is more likely to go wrong at the worst possible moment. This does mean that bread will statistically land butter side down more often than not, but if you drop both a slice of toast with butter and a slice of toast with jelly, the jelly is more likely to land facing down than the butter because butter is easier to clean.
In the same vein, your car's breaks may be worn out and about to give, but it's less likely that they'll fail when you're pulling into your home because that would be too easy.

This means that, in D&D terms, your character is more likely to do poorly only when it would be the absolute worst and most amusing outcome for him to fail.

[Max Caysey]

Hey guys,
I was wondering if someone could help me figure out how to explain to my DM that Leadership is broken.
He has just allowed a wizard in the party to take it and the DM isn't very knowledgeable on a ton of 3.5, so any help with how to explain how broken Leadership is would be much appreciated!

NB. I know that it is bad to take something away from a player one you have given it, so any suggestions on limiting the brokenness of Leadership would be appreciated as well!
Also, before anyone suggests I leave the group, I would like to say that I do not want to leave the group. We have a very good dynamic in the group and it works very well, the DM just doesn't know much about broken stuff...

(Also, if he continues to allow Leadership in its RAW form, my backup character may need to have a mirror mephit familiar)

If you are friends, and have a good dynamic, then what is the problem? Not everyone effectively tries to break the game, with everything they have. I mean a level 20 wizard can do it, but that would end the game, so if the DM does not abuse stuff, the player might not either.

So elaborate... what is the problem?

[TheifofZ]

If you are friends, and have a good dynamic, then what is the problem? Not everyone effectively tries to break the game, with everything they have. I mean a level 20 wizard can do it, but that would end the game, so if the DM does not abuse stuff, the player might not either.

So elaborate... what is the problem?
Well. The first problem is assuming the word 'friends' is involved. 'Friends' is a strong word that shouldn't be used lightly.
Start with 'Associates' or 'occasional acquaintances'.
The second problem is that he's stated that the wizard is using leadership to gain wizard followers.
And most of us are definitely smelling some Gorgonzola coming from that.

[Max Caysey]

Well. The first problem is assuming the word 'friends' is involved. 'Friends' is a strong word that shouldn't be used lightly.
Start with 'Associates' or 'occasional acquaintances'.
The second problem is that he's stated that the wizard is using leadership to gain wizard followers.
And most of us are definitely smelling some Gorgonzola coming from that.

I was refering to real world friendship... Did you also?

I can only talk from passed experience, and that is, that the cohord and followers did not join the party in adventuring, thus not effectively "extra PCs" on the table. The followers and cohord were like the staff of the mansion, where they did the security and the research of different matters... The Wizard cohord did a few items too, but it was fairly unimpressive. So even though this paladin got thousands of followers, he did not seek to destroy the fun of everyone at the table... He could have, but didn't...

[TheifofZ]

OP never actually stated the word 'friends' in his post. They may all be friends, or they may all be friends of one person but barely know eachother. Or some combination of those two. I'm not going to jump to the conclusion either way.

And just because one person could have, but didn't, doesn't mean this case will be the same.
Other people, I know afew and I'm certain it's come up often enough to be a regular thing here, do break games with Leadership.
The problem comes when the DM is relatively new and hasn't had to handle the big ball of issues and potential potency that is the feat called Leadership before.
So what OP wants is for the posters in the thread to explain why Leadership is potentially broken to the DM who doesn't know about how ridiculous it can be. After that, the DM can look at the use this guy, who may be friends with Shnigda but may also only be someone whom he shares a friend with, is planning for it.

But more importantly, treasure the innocence that thinks the best of the situation. It's a priceless treasure, man.

Edit: also some people enjoy pushing their potential power to the absolute limit. Min-maxers show up to games all the time, and all of them are fully intent on making a character as strong as possible in a specific way. These people tend not to care how it'll affect the group, or assume everyone is doing it. Not everyone is of good heart and friendly intent.

[noob]

Well one min maxer might just think that by min maxing his character he will make his team able to fight greater odds and might try to use some ways to make all the other member of the team up to date by giving them rings of spell storage with shape-shift and stuff of this kind for making them keep up with his power(And might even distribute a great part of his level based wealth to his allies because with his min maxing he does not needs it)
You can cooperate with your team while min maxing(in fact the best min maxer max his allies so that they help him and turn them into aleaxes of themselves and stuff of this kind for making them not die).
But in fact he is harming the game by making the GM angry at the fact no monster of level less than infinite can do anything against the team and so that the min maxer destroys the game.

[TheifofZ]

Which, while a helpful point, isn't actually relevant.
The point is that Leadership has the potential to be broken, and that the original poster was worried that the other party member was taking it to break the game.
Min-maxers may not all screw the party over, and leadership may not always be used to it's maximum power, but the entire issue isn't a hypothetical moral issue.
It's a 'here and now, there is a problem' issue. Immediate concern, instead of in potentia.

[Chronos]

Leadership is absolutely not broken. Consider: Suppose that a couple of people in your group met someone at work (or school or wherever) who was interested in playing, and you invited him to join your table. That's a good thing, right? But the party has just gained the power of an entire new character. This is a bigger power boost than Leadership (because the new character has full WBL, and is the same level as everyone else), but it's something that people not only tolerate, but actually welcome. And nobody had to pay anything for it, aside from possibly an increase in the pizza and Cheetos budget.

The problem with Leadership is not a balance issue, but an issue with fun, and it's not a problem that would be relevant for all games. If combats are already taking too long, or one particular player is already hogging all of the play time with complicated actions, then Leadership can make that worse. That's why the feat is explicitly listed as a DM's option.

[Twurps]

Hey guys,
I was wondering if someone could help me figure out how to explain to my DM that Leadership is broken.
He has just allowed a wizard in the party to take it and the DM isn't very knowledgeable on a ton of 3.5, so any help with how to explain how broken Leadership is would be much appreciated!


With 3 threads on leadership going on, there's not much I can add from a theoretical standpoint. But consider this:

Your DM doesn't think leadership is broken, or he wouldn't have allowed it
Your wizard player doesn't think leadership is broken, or he wouldn't have taken it
You can't tell why leadership is broken, or you wouldn't have started this thread.

Are you sure leadership is going to be broken in your game?

(And even if it does turn out to be broken, that 'll be a learning experience that you will all benefit from. You have a good dyanamic going on, surely you can work something out.)

[Nifft]

Your wizard player doesn't think leadership is broken, or he wouldn't have taken it


That does not follow at all.

The guy playing a top T1 class might be playing that class because it's best able to break the game.

Or he might not.

You can't really guess his motives nor his beliefs.

[dascarletm]

Informing us on your co-player's intent towards taking the feat may prove useful. I've played a wizard, and taken leadership. Of course, it was used to represent my school. The followers were the students, and the cohort was my co-founder/dean. If the player intends to only use the followers/cohorts irregularly it might not be a problem.

The best balancing mechanic for leadership (and all things really) is mutual trust and respect between players and DM.

[Nifft]

It's easy to play a cohort wizard that does not unbalance the game -- if the player wants to. Make the cohort a buffing wizard who stands back and buffs the martials, or casts party-wide buffs like Haste.

Similarly, a cohort cleric should focus on healing. {Scrubbed}

[Vizzerdrix]

Roll up your second character. Ready all your followers, then the next time your party camps go into an in depth lecture to all your followers (with several Q&A segments) on the importance of preventing trench foot*. After a couple hours of you talking to, questioning, and answering yourself your DM will either ban you or be willing to revise Leadership.




*Side note: take care of your feet, and they will take care of you.

[gijoemike]

Question:
How is the DM running leadership? Not all DMs run it as "Here build your own NPCsecond PC for use in combat and control their actions entirely". I have found success running it as "You are a strong enough leader that you gain an organization(here are rules for number of followers) and an administrator(the cohort) for while you are off adventuring". It still can be a strong feat but it also can be very RP rich while only being as powerful as Skill Focus(Speak Language) depending on the organization the player creates.

I concur. Leadership is only a problem if the PC is allowed to build up a T1 or T2 caster and have 100% control of them at all times. I have played under DM's that let me choose an NPC we had encountered during the campaign or an NPC from our backstory and that is what we gained control of. The characters in question were maybe T3. Sometimes they get built with a stat array one step down from where the PCs were able to choose from. Other times the GM would would build out 3 NPCs based on the qualifications the PC wanted and the PC got to choose one. Similar to a job interview and hiring selection. One time I even saw a cohort turn down the offer because the PC wasn't willing to deal with them in good fair.

Also, if the PC already has a familiar/animal companion, or had gotten one killed, or have crap for cha they take a hit to the leadership score and the cohort may be 1 or 2 whole levels behind the party.

Also, how does this cohort get geared? fair split of the party or a portion of the PCs. This causes the leader and cohort to both be under wealth.

I have played with leadership in D&D and PF games and it was perfectly fine. But there is great potential to ruin the game or tip the balance pretty hard. The DM must always ask the question "Why is X the cohort of the PC?" If it doesn't make sense the cohort goes off on their own and a new one shows up.

[aglondier]

It can be a bit broken, but then, a munchkin or rules lawyer can break any character option...

My dwarf magus will be taking leadership at 9th level (not enough benefit at 7th), using the followers as support staff for the Mercenary Company he is building. Cooks, smiths, armourers, chaplains, etc. The Cohort will be a Cleric of some suitably militant and smithy dwarven diety, and basically be my 2IC. I could take him adventuring, but I honestly think that would be a waste...


...besides, we already have 7 players around the table, one of whom is a beastmaster druid...don't need more miniatures on the table...


...and it would seem this thread is twitching a damn lot for such a long dead specimen...

[Zombimode]

Hey guys,
I was wondering if someone could help me figure out how to explain to my DM that Leadership is broken.
He has just allowed a wizard in the party to take it and the DM isn't very knowledgeable on a ton of 3.5, so any help with how to explain how broken Leadership is would be much appreciated!

NB. I know that it is bad to take something away from a player one you have given it, so any suggestions on limiting the brokenness of Leadership would be appreciated as well!
Also, before anyone suggests I leave the group, I would like to say that I do not want to leave the group. We have a very good dynamic in the group and it works very well, the DM just doesn't know much about broken stuff...

(Also, if he continues to allow Leadership in its RAW form, my backup character may need to have a mirror mephit familiar)

First: is the wizard PC having leadership actually causing any problems for your game?

If not, then why bother?


Second: If you can't explain why Leadership is "broken" do you have actual reasons for believing so?
I mean, if you do believe that, why can't you simply state the reasons for your belief?



As for suggestions on keeping Leadership in check: the DM creates the and (to some extend) controlls the Cohort. With that the DM has full controll over the power of the cohort.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: it's not as broken as Raise Unthread!