Chained leadership at a normal table

[redking]

I see a lot of people saying that it's "easy" to abuse leadership, such as chaining leadership by having your cohort have leadership, and the cohort having a cohort and so on.

In the leadership feat, there are leadership penalties, reputation modifiers, that reduce leadership score. It seems to me that a cohort could easily get a penalty of half it's leadership score due to being a cohort to someone else, and so on down the chain.

Can anyone suggest further modifiers for leadership, beyond what we already have in the leadership feat?

[Maat Mons]

Your cohort's cohort could hate you.

[AvatarVecna]

I see a lot of people saying that it's "easy" to abuse leadership, such as chaining leadership by having your cohort have leadership, and the cohort having a cohort and so on.

In the leadership feat, there are leadership penalties, reputation modifiers, that reduce leadership score. It seems to me that a cohort could easily get a penalty of half it's leadership score due to being a cohort to someone else, and so on down the chain.

Can anyone suggest further modifiers for leadership, beyond what we already have in the leadership feat?

Leadership isn't broken because of theoretical chaining that probably wouldn't be allowed at most tables, Leadership is broken because it gives the party an extra PC worth of fighting power without affecting the XP split or having another person to argue with. You've just a permanent extra pool of HP and actions and daily resources, who can either fill a role the party doesn't have, or shore up a role the party could use more of. For the price of a single feat that has zero prerequisites and is in one of the only books that's basically impossible to blanket-ban. Even if the DM is the one building them, it's basically impossible to have a cohort that's useless. The frontline can always use another body, and even a few d4 is enough if they're not your HP. Even if they never come with you on adventures, they'll level up alongside you; they can stay back in town and manage a business or something that can make some extra money without any additional risk. And that's the bare minimum of what you can get out of it. If you get to build it yourself? Power increase. If you get to fine-tune your followers' builds and actions? Power increase. If you get to chain leadership in some fashion? Power increase. But none of that is necessary for Leadership to be far and away one of the most powerful feats in the game. If gestalt were a feat that prevented you from taking Leadership, Leadership would still be the more powerful feat.

I will also agree that, if we were to make up new rules that give big penalties to chained leadership, chained leadership would be much worse. I don't think the theoretical possibility of gradually-lower-level cohorts is all that big of a balance issue though. The idea that a Fighter 15 might have 1 Fighter 13, 2 Fighter 11s, 4 Fighter 9s, 8 Fighter 7s, etc at his beck and call...everything after Fighter 13 is basically irrelevant to any encounter the Fighter 15 is engaging with. You get a slightly bigger group of lvl 1 experts working on your Craft factory, but that's a problem even normal Leadership has, just slightly worse.

The balance issue in the "chained leadership" combo is not the "chained" part.

[lylsyly]

At our table Leadership cannot be taken unless you have built a stronghold of some sort. You do not get the Cohort at all, just the followers to man/maintain your stronghold ;-).

[Gnaeus]

Leadership isn't broken because of theoretical chaining that probably wouldn't be allowed at most tables, Leadership is broken because it gives the party an extra PC worth of fighting power without affecting the XP split or having another person to argue with. You've just a permanent extra pool of HP and actions and daily resources, who can either fill a role the party doesn't have, or shore up a role the party could use more of. For the price of a single feat that has zero prerequisites and is in one of the only books that's basically impossible to blanket-ban. Even if the DM is the one building them, it's basically impossible to have a cohort that's useless. The frontline can always use another body, and even a few d4 is enough if they're not your HP. Even if they never come with you on adventures, they'll level up alongside you; they can stay back in town and manage a business or something that can make some extra money without any additional risk. And that's the bare minimum of what you can get out of it. If you get to build it yourself? Power increase. If you get to fine-tune your followers' builds and actions? Power increase. If you get to chain leadership in some fashion? Power increase. But none of that is necessary for Leadership to be far and away one of the most powerful feats in the game. If gestalt were a feat that prevented you from taking Leadership, Leadership would still be the more powerful feat.

I will also agree that, if we were to make up new rules that give big penalties to chained leadership, chained leadership would be much worse. I don't think the theoretical possibility of gradually-lower-level cohorts is all that big of a balance issue though. The idea that a Fighter 15 might have 1 Fighter 13, 2 Fighter 11s, 4 Fighter 9s, 8 Fighter 7s, etc at his beck and call...everything after Fighter 13 is basically irrelevant to any encounter the Fighter 15 is engaging with. You get a slightly bigger group of lvl 1 experts working on your Craft factory, but that's a problem even normal Leadership has, just slightly worse.

The balance issue in the "chained leadership" combo is not the "chained" part.

This is all true.

There are, however, additional problems. Adding bodies slows fights. Its such a good feat that there is no good reason NOT to take it, but if you allow it, it just doubled your four man party into an 8 man party. I would argue not to allow leadership as a game in which I am a player, but if it is on the table, I will absolutely take it on any build.

The thing about the chained leadership paragraph is that that is only really true of fighters. Yes, only the fighter 13 can contribute much to combat. But if the 2 11s are a transmuter and a cleric, and the 9s are a Bard, Dragon Shaman, Marshall and divine mind, that fighter 15 is a LOT stronger. I mean each one of the 9th level cohorts would be worth a good feat. There are lots of fighter feats that are worse than a single aura from one of those 4.

And then theres the way a wizard or archivist can add to their spellbook by trading spells with followers. Or how the cohort can take a bunch of crafting feats.

[SillySymphonies]

RAI: "Cohorts are not leaders." [DMG p. 104]



Adding bodies slows fights. Its such a good feat that there is no good reason NOT to take it, but if you allow it, it just doubled your four man party into an 8 man party.
See contingent cohorts (DMG p. 200): "For instance, the DM may have between three to seven players show up at any one game. Suppose she likes a group of five to seven best. She may rule that the Leadership feat isn’t always active. The player selecting the Leadership feat also chooses an alternate feat. (This alternate feat cannot function as the prerequisite for any other feat. Improved Initiative is a fine alternate feat.) The DM may declare that if the number of players is less than five, characters who took the Leadership feat may bring along their cohorts. If the number of players is five or more, players who took the Leadership feat can’t bring their cohorts, but instead gain the benefits of their alternate feat for the session."

[Gnaeus]

See contingent cohorts (DMG p. 200): "For instance, the DM may have between three to seven players show up at any one game. Suppose she likes a group of five to seven best. She may rule that the Leadership feat isn’t always active. The player selecting the Leadership feat also chooses an alternate feat. (This alternate feat cannot function as the prerequisite for any other feat. Improved Initiative is a fine alternate feat.) The DM may declare that if the number of players is less than five, characters who took the Leadership feat may bring along their cohorts. If the number of players is five or more, players who took the Leadership feat can’t bring their cohorts, but instead gain the benefits of their alternate feat for the session."

That in no way solves a 4 player group that jumps to 8. Its a meh solution to a group with erratic membership that wants to play anyway, but has 0 relevance to my comment. I'm perfectly happy with a small group. But if leadership is allowed for someone else, it better be allowed for my character.

[SillySymphonies]

That in no way solves a 4 player group that jumps to 8. Its a meh solution to a group with erratic membership that wants to play anyway, but has 0 relevance to my comment. I'm perfectly happy with a small group. But if leadership is allowed for someone else, it better be allowed for my character.
Am I to understand the number of players in your group isn't irregular? In that case, do argue not to allow Leadership at a game in which you are a player. :smallwink:

[Gnaeus]

Am I to understand the number of players in your group isn't irregular? In that case, do argue not to allow Leadership at a game in which you are a player. :smallwink:

No. It's very stable. We are adults, with a set time, and if someone can't play we reschedule.

And I do, and generally get outvoted, and always take leadership. Because it's too good not to. And if it makes certain character types obsolete, at least I can still make an item crafter, even if it doesn't get to be my PC.

[rel]

I see a lot of people saying that it's "easy" to abuse leadership, such as chaining leadership by having your cohort have leadership, and the cohort having a cohort and so on.

In the leadership feat, there are leadership penalties, reputation modifiers, that reduce leadership score. It seems to me that a cohort could easily get a penalty of half it's leadership score due to being a cohort to someone else, and so on down the chain.

Can anyone suggest further modifiers for leadership, beyond what we already have in the leadership feat?

I'm assuming you want penalties specifically restricting cohorts taking leadership:

pushover: The character is a doormat that always does what the character they follow says

unambitious: The character doesn't seem to want to do anything aside from provide free buffs and item crafting for their exploitative 'friend'

(for the PC or someone near the top of the leadership chain)
twotiming: sure they technically work for one another, but the character effectively has multiple cohorts. If you thought owning a familiar made it hard to get followers, wait till you see the penalties on this one.

exploitative: The character demands their followers regularly provide services that would normally be rather costly such as spellcasting and item crafting

greedy: The character doesn't reward or compensate their followers for their loyal service.

[RexDart]

At our table Leadership cannot be taken unless you have built a stronghold of some sort. You do not get the Cohort at all, just the followers to man/maintain your stronghold ;-).

Alternatively, you can reverse that logic, and think about how feudal structures work. As I often say, real-life medieval kingdoms had a name for groups of adventurers roaming the countryside with no fealty to any particular ruler: "bandits."

But in the context of the typical D&D fantasy world, it's easy to assume rulers might tolerate adventurers, or at least look the other way, because history establishes that they tend to do more good than harm.

But there's a difference between tolerating a handful of adventurers and tolerating a small army of 50-some individuals, which starts looking an awful lot like "rebel army" or the like. The upside for the player, though, is that a small army of 50-some people led by a capable friendly PC would be an asset to the ruler, who might even give the PC a stronghold (or let her keep one after liberating it from bad guys.) The catch would be feudal obligations. This is where one of my characters was headed, but the campaign fizzled out just before she would have taken the Leadership feat.

Anyway, not all characters or players would want the feudal ties that come with Leadership (or, if you're the sneaky type, the hassle of maintaining a covert network of followers.)

And in our groups, we haven't had much Leadership simply because most players don't want the additional work that comes with running two PCs (plus whatever summons, animal companions, familiars, etc. might be involved.)

[AvatarVecna]

I'm assuming you want penalties specifically restricting cohorts taking leadership:

Actually, gonna address this again for the OP cuz I remembered what it reminded me of:


Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use. When you do:

The disruptive munchkin ignores it, argues it, or forces the rest of the group to suffer through it. His power remains the same, and he gets more annoying to play with.
The inappropriate powergamer figures out how to circumvent the restriction. His power remains the same.
The reasonable player either figures out how to circumvent the restriction (rendering it moot), avoids the class (turning it into a ban) or suffers through it. His power remains the same and/or his enjoyment goes down.
The new player avoids the class or suffers through it. His enjoyment goes down.

Notice how the problem players feel the least impact?

And yeah, you can yell and fiat at your players all you want to stop them from "cheating" the system, but that only works if you have a reasonable group to start with-- ie, one that's not going to disrupt the game through munchkinry.

If the problem you're trying to solve is "chaining leadership is too powerful", and you're not banning leadership, then you need to just ban chaining. Doing this extra penalty dance just encourages people to either avoid the mechanic entirely, or to circumvent it via shooting Leadership Score so high it doesn't matter. The former is effectively a ban, and the latter means the balance issue at your table has probably gotten worse instead of better (since now they have chained leadership, and also like Cha +69 or whatever). Just banning the chain in the first place can save you a lot of headache, and that's essentially what you're doing already anyway, so why leave the door open for cheating optimizers?

[Eldonauran]

I solve the problem with leadership quite easily. The Players have little to no control on the specifics of the cohort they attract, aside from the explicit race, class, and alignment called out in the feat description. Alternate class features? No. Feats? No. Skill points? No. This prevents any kind of tailoring the cohort to be exactly what you want it to be. They can provide input on personality traits they'd like to see but they get no real ability to dictate the overall personality, choices, or goals that cohort has. They get what is essentially a fairly detailed NPC that has agreed to follow them.

Now, I will allow the player to make small tweaks and changes to the cohort through retraining options, if they are able to convince the cohort the changes are beneficial not only to the group, but to that cohort as well.

As to 'chaining' Leadership? Never going to happen in the games I run. Why? Because cohorts will not take the Leadership feat.

[Gnaeus]

I solve the problem with leadership quite easily. The Players have little to no control on the specifics of the cohort they attract, aside from the explicit race, class, and alignment called out in the feat description. Alternate class features? No. Feats? No. Skill points? No. This prevents any kind of tailoring the cohort to be exactly what you want it to be. They can provide input on personality traits they'd like to see but they get no real ability to dictate the overall personality, choices, or goals that cohort has. They get what is essentially a fairly detailed NPC that has agreed to follow them.


This does reduce the cheese a bit, and may have some impact in preventing use as crafters. I would expect depending on DM optimization levels it would have very strong impacts on what kinds of cohorts are selected. Like, its pretty easy to make a sorcerer that isn't very helpful. Its pretty hard to make a good aligned cleric who isn't worth quite a bit more than a feat unless he has an under 10 wisdom, which just seems cruel. Similarly, warblade, beguiler, dread necro are difficult to make in a way that doesn't do their class job, and the worst built wizard is a couple scrolls away from competent (less than that if the party already has a wizard he can share spells with).

[Eldonauran]

This does reduce the cheese a bit, and may have some impact in preventing use as crafters. I would expect depending on DM optimization levels it would have very strong impacts on what kinds of cohorts are selected. Like, its pretty easy to make a sorcerer that isn't very helpful. Its pretty hard to make a good aligned cleric who isn't worth quite a bit more than a feat unless he has an under 10 wisdom, which just seems cruel. Similarly, warblade, beguiler, dread necro are difficult to make in a way that doesn't do their class job, and the worst built wizard is a couple scrolls away from competent (less than that if the party already has a wizard he can share spells with).That is the very reason I do not create useless NPCs or cohorts. If player is going to invest one of the few character feats into something that is going to intimately tie them into the game world through a reputation mechanic, and actually exert measurable influence through their followers, that investment is going to be rewarded. But they do not get to cherry pick everything they want. That kind of freedom is limited only to their own character sheet.