PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Do you use the Leadership feat?



ken-do-nim
2008-12-12, 01:08 PM
The leadership feat was put into the DMG because it is an optional rule. Do you allow it, or do you prefer to have npcs tag along with the party in a more plot-driven fashion?

I used to allow it. The last 3.5 game I ran I told everybody to make 10th level characters and run them by me ahead of time before the first session. Naturally one player didn't run his character by me and showed up with 2 characters, his main character and that character's wife (his 'cohort'). It felt kinda power-gamey to me.

The other big problem with a cohort that I can see is that if you the DM decide that the cohort has a dubious background and is keeping secrets from his employer, there could come a time when the cohort doesn't 'follow orders' and then the player can whine about he spent a feat to get the cohort and therefore his character build is getting nerfed. Since I do like to have the possibility of mystery surrounding anyone who interacts with the pcs, I think I prefer to just have people sometimes follow pcs without the need for a feat, but then I the DM get more full control.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-12, 01:14 PM
The leadership feat was put into the DMG because it is an optional rule. Do you allow it,

Nope.

And not just because of the cheese factor. It also slows down gameplay, adds unnecessary complication, and many people have problems roleplaying two characters at once (resulting either in a muddle, or in a prime char and an ignored secondary).

Yukitsu
2008-12-12, 01:15 PM
I use it every time we only have three players at the table.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-12, 01:16 PM
as a dm I have had many players use the leadership feat to reasonable sucess.

yes npc cohorts dont blindly follow orders. they are people allied with the player who can be trusted to work in their best interest. maybe not completely honest, but the point of the cohort if someone you know isnt goign to lead a rebellion of your forces when you act like a total douche (aka leadership score drops to a really low number).

and lets be honest as a dm for them to trust someone who isnt a cohort is a risky game it may pay off it may not, but if you want reasonable asssurances you get the cohort.

have used the "alfred" example. he has secrets he has a past as a secret agent, but he is bruce waynes most trusted assistant. he wont screw him over even if the foundation goes bankrupt.

MeklorIlavator
2008-12-12, 01:16 PM
Pretty much what you said, but there are some additional reasons. I play with large groups alot, so I don't feel the need for allowing cohorts. If I was running a small group I might let it by, but in a 6 or 7 man group I really think it would make things too easy on the players. Also, I don't like the way its used to fill party roles. Again, this is linked to the fact that I'm generally in groups with 6 or more people, and if it was only 3 or something then I wouldn't mind as much, but if you have 6 people and aren't filling roles, work around it.

Saph
2008-12-12, 01:17 PM
I generally don't allow it, for three reasons:

• I always have more people wanting to join my campaign than I have spare places, and usually end up with an average of at least 5 players at the table. That's more than enough characters to keep track of without adding cohorts.

• Having players play two characters instead of one really hurts roleplaying in my experience. The players have to keep breaking character to explain which one of them is talking and it makes it impossible for them to speak in the first person - "I walk up to the table and look at the items." "Which one of you?"

• It's potentially the most broken feat in the game, as you'd expect from anything that gives you two characters instead of one.

That said, the feat could work in small parties. But I'd only allow it for someone who was a VERY good roleplayer and who wanted it for RP reasons, rather than power.

- Saph

Draz74
2008-12-12, 01:18 PM
I concur with others: In a small campaign of 1 or 2 PCs, or maybe even 3, it is a decent way to round out the party.

Then again, I might just try out Gestalt in this situation instead!

Telonius
2008-12-12, 01:19 PM
Only in very specific situations will I use Leadership, and then I only apply the cohort (not the followers) rule. This is the sort of situation I'd use for Leadership:

- Complex adventure requiring a lot out of a DM
- Three-person playing group with at least one novice player and one experienced player

In that sort of case, a DMPC is unworkable. Gestalt isn't much better, since the newbies would be utterly confused and the party would be quite a bit more powerful. (And Tel really doesn't want to spend even more time rebalancing the whole quest to gestalt). The party still needs a fourth man to fill all the roles. So Leadership it is. Experienced player takes charge of the cohort. Since it's weaker than the group, the newbies don't feel slighted.

Otherwise, it really is more trouble than it's worth.

Fax Celestis
2008-12-12, 01:21 PM
I allow leadership, but only if the cohort and followers remain largely off-screen.

WaterTengu
2008-12-12, 01:24 PM
I allow it, but only if they follow them EVERYWHERE, so they can easily die. every time one dies i give a -2 morale check to the player and cohort on all checks. that minus stacks for each death (-2, -4, -6).

kamikasei
2008-12-12, 01:27 PM
I was under the impression that the cohort was supposed to be under the DM's control, not the player's? That the feat is not a way to have two characters, but to represent with a mechanical cost the benefit of having close ties to an NPC ally.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-12, 01:30 PM
I was under the impression that the cohort was supposed to be under the DM's control, not the player's? That the feat is not a way to have two characters, but to represent with a mechanical cost the benefit of having close ties to an NPC ally.


true but dms are busy people they have to control a world. many delegate.

me I'd delegate to another player if I didnt want to do it personally. but to each their own games

AKA_Bait
2008-12-12, 01:35 PM
Nope.

And not just because of the cheese factor. It also slows down gameplay, adds unnecessary complication, and many people have problems roleplaying two characters at once (resulting either in a muddle, or in a prime char and an ignored secondary).

Between this and what Saph said pretty much all my reasons for not allowing it in games I DM are covered.

Duke of URL
2008-12-12, 01:39 PM
It may make sense in a "sandbox" type game, but I've rarely been in a game where Leadership wouldn't be more trouble than it's worth. (I'm in one PbP game where it may make sense -- for one player (mine, coincidentally) -- based on the situation, and it is a sandbox style game.)

Eorran
2008-12-12, 01:47 PM
Leadership's an anachronistic holdover from 2e, when everyone who got to 9th level (I think) was expected to gain some sort of recognition: a title, the ability to own land, the chance to build a keep / temple / library etc. Once this was done, the character would start attracting followers.

Leadership makes sense if your campaign moves into a kingdom-building style, where the PCs become politicians and it's all about having allies, troops, wealth, etc. It can be fun if your players are into it, but if they want more traditional D&D (by which I mean the game is still mostly about their personal abilities), Leadership makes no sense. It slows the game, loads down the players or the DM (or both), and detracts from the point.

So yeah, use Leadership if you want your higher-level PCs to start building their own little (or large) empires in the game. Don't use it if they're still solo or small party adventurers with reality-warping powers.

It should probably be a higher-level feat, though, like 9th or 12th level.

Eldariel
2008-12-12, 01:52 PM
I don't require my players to have Leadership to have followers or underlings. All it requires is certain type of playing. Leadership, in my opinion, adds rules where none are due. Although I do occasionally do use it on monsters as a mechanical drawback for having more people loyally working for them (a bit better fit for CR).

Tacoma
2008-12-12, 02:19 PM
Leadership's an anachronistic holdover from 2e, when everyone who got to 9th level (I think) was expected to gain some sort of recognition: a title, the ability to own land, the chance to build a keep / temple / library etc. Once this was done, the character would start attracting followers.

Leadership makes sense if your campaign moves into a kingdom-building style, where the PCs become politicians and it's all about having allies, troops, wealth, etc. It can be fun if your players are into it, but if they want more traditional D&D (by which I mean the game is still mostly about their personal abilities), Leadership makes no sense. It slows the game, loads down the players or the DM (or both), and detracts from the point.

So yeah, use Leadership if you want your higher-level PCs to start building their own little (or large) empires in the game. Don't use it if they're still solo or small party adventurers with reality-warping powers.

It should probably be a higher-level feat, though, like 9th or 12th level.

You said what I was going to say.

But I disagree that the feat should be bumped up in level. At low level you get only a couple followers even if you have an excellent Charisma and you court all the positive modifiers. And your cohort is never more powerful than one level below your main character.

On the other hand, it's a feat that gets much better as you increase in level. Power Attack is another one. So is the Cleave chain and the TWF chain. Such feats are inherently unbalanced when compared to static feats like the saving throw bonus feats, Skill Focus, Dodge, Spell Penetration, School Focus, Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, and equipment proficiency feats.

In play I've found that these side characters aren't worthwhile in a fight except in cases where the Leader has such a high leadership score that he starts to get 6th level followers and he's only 7-9th level himself, and in the case of a cohort chosen for excellent synergy with the Leader.

I'd say the cohort should be limited to two levels below the Leader and the highest level follower is two levels below the cohort. That second part shouldn't be an issue except for people playing a specifically Leadership build. Furthermore it should be explicit that only PCs and independent NPCs can learn Leadership - your cohort, followers, animal companions, and familiar cannot learn it to give you a vast branching command structure.

In fact I can imagine a recursive set of CHA builds that result in your 6th level follower also being a CHA build that gets Leadership and similarly gets some 6th level followers, who ... you know. At 5th level you're just another dude, and at 6th level you're the kingpin of a world-spanning military structure that includes every thinking being of 5th level or lower.

Epinephrine
2008-12-12, 03:01 PM
Sure, I'll allow it, but I'd also make sure it wasnt abused. A spellthief wanting a warlock buddy for free bonuses? Not a chance.

A worshipper of some deity wanting an intelligent ally/defender? Probably. You can't easily include something like a unicorn mount for a servant of a good deity, while leadership makes it quite possible.

As others have mentioned, the use of leadership to fill out a party role in a small party is perfectly reasonable.

sombrastewart
2008-12-12, 03:30 PM
I do not use Leadership, and in the 3.5 games I've run, I wouldn't allow it, either. It's too easily abusable and I really, really, REALLY don't want people skirting their shortcuts by having a backup PC for the cost of a feat.

Telonius
2008-12-12, 03:51 PM
You said what I was going to say.

But I disagree that the feat should be bumped up in level. At low level you get only a couple followers even if you have an excellent Charisma and you court all the positive modifiers. And your cohort is never more powerful than one level below your main character.

On the other hand, it's a feat that gets much better as you increase in level. Power Attack is another one. So is the Cleave chain and the TWF chain. Such feats are inherently unbalanced when compared to static feats like the saving throw bonus feats, Skill Focus, Dodge, Spell Penetration, School Focus, Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, and equipment proficiency feats.

In play I've found that these side characters aren't worthwhile in a fight except in cases where the Leader has such a high leadership score that he starts to get 6th level followers and he's only 7-9th level himself, and in the case of a cohort chosen for excellent synergy with the Leader.

I'd say the cohort should be limited to two levels below the Leader and the highest level follower is two levels below the cohort. That second part shouldn't be an issue except for people playing a specifically Leadership build. Furthermore it should be explicit that only PCs and independent NPCs can learn Leadership - your cohort, followers, animal companions, and familiar cannot learn it to give you a vast branching command structure.

In fact I can imagine a recursive set of CHA builds that result in your 6th level follower also being a CHA build that gets Leadership and similarly gets some 6th level followers, who ... you know. At 5th level you're just another dude, and at 6th level you're the kingpin of a world-spanning military structure that includes every thinking being of 5th level or lower.


Well, let's see. You'd need a leadership score of 21 to get a 6th-level follower. Leadership score = 6 +2 (Great Renown) +2 (has a base of operations) +1 (fairness) + 1 (generosity) +Cha modifier. So 12 + cha modifier = 21, Cha modifier would have to be +9 or better. Base Cha is 18, + 3 (venerable), +1 (4th-level bump), for a total of 22, or +6. Cloak of Charisma +4 is a little out of the WBL at that level, but +2 is certainly available.

And all of that is just in Core. I would be truly surprised if there isn't some way of cheesing out another +4 - I can't find one at the moment, but there has to be some race with LA+0 that gives you a +2 Cha lying around somewhere.

So, as long as you're generous, have a base, are fair, are renowned, don't mind playing a weird-raced geezer, and have a DM with several loose screws, you too can have followers who are as powerful as you are.

Draz74
2008-12-12, 03:54 PM
Lesser Aasimar is the typical cheese to pull off LA +0 with a CHA boost.

Now try convincing your DM that your top Follower is, himself, another Venerable Lesser Aasimar who rolled an 18 for starting CHA ... :smallamused:

Tacoma
2008-12-12, 03:59 PM
Well, let's see. You'd need a leadership score of 21 to get a 6th-level follower. Leadership score = 6 +2 (Great Renown) +2 (has a base of operations) +1 (fairness) + 1 (generosity) +Cha modifier. So 12 + cha modifier = 21, Cha modifier would have to be +9 or better. Base Cha is 18, + 3 (venerable), +1 (4th-level bump), for a total of 22, or +6. Cloak of Charisma +4 is a little out of the WBL at that level, but +2 is certainly available.

And all of that is just in Core. I would be truly surprised if there isn't some way of cheesing out another +4 - I can't find one at the moment, but there has to be some race with LA+0 that gives you a +2 Cha lying around somewhere.

So, as long as you're generous, have a base, are fair, are renowned, don't mind playing a weird-raced geezer, and have a DM with several loose screws, you too can have followers who are as powerful as you are.

You don't know how freaked out I am right now. As soon as I read "weird-raced geezer" and misread it as "weird-faced geezer" I thought of Mick Jagger.

Telonius
2008-12-12, 03:59 PM
If he allowed that sort of nonsense in the first place, it shouldn't be too hard to convince him. :smallbiggrin:

Telonius
2008-12-12, 04:02 PM
You don't know how freaked out I am right now. As soon as I read "weird-raced geezer" and misread it as "weird-faced geezer" I thought of Mick Jagger.

I almost put this down as "The Jagger Build," but Lesser Aasimar doesn't really fit him. Lesser Tiefling, maybe. :sabine:

Superglucose
2008-12-12, 04:06 PM
Nope.

And not just because of the cheese factor. It also slows down gameplay, adds unnecessary complication, and many people have problems roleplaying two characters at once (resulting either in a muddle, or in a prime char and an ignored secondary).

This.

I will allow it under very specific circumstances, however: 1) if the player agrees to keep all followers off screen and 2a) agrees to not use the cohort feature, 2b) keeps the cohort off screen, or 2c) is using the cohort to improve their special mount.

I always let paladins use Leadership for their special mount, because it's so much cooler that way.

Yukitsu
2008-12-12, 04:09 PM
So basically, you let them use a feat slot to gain no benefit. Ho yay.

Shpadoinkle
2008-12-12, 05:09 PM
So basically, you let them use a feat slot to gain no benefit. Ho yay.

I don't think it's NO benefit, it's just a "you can't use it DURING an adventure" benefit. Having your followers mannaing a stronghold or something gives your character and the party a fairly safe and reliable place to spend downtime, a base of opertions where, say, the party wizard can construct a lab, the party cleric can build a shrine, and make it easier for NPCs to locate the PCs (which could be either good or bad depending on the NPC in question). It could also provide the DM with new adventure hooks and ideas (PCs are a LOT more likely to take interest in a war, for example, if thier stronghold is in the enemy army's way).

Captain Six
2008-12-12, 07:20 PM
I don't think it's NO benefit, it's just a "you can't use it DURING an adventure" benefit. Having your followers mannaing a stronghold or something gives your character and the party a fairly safe and reliable place to spend downtime, a base of opertions where, say, the party wizard can construct a lab, the party cleric can build a shrine, and make it easier for NPCs to locate the PCs (which could be either good or bad depending on the NPC in question). It could also provide the DM with new adventure hooks and ideas (PCs are a LOT more likely to take interest in a war, for example, if thier stronghold is in the enemy army's way).

That's pretty much why I take that feat in the first place. I'm pretty big on the idea of founding a kingdom as a character goal and adventure to get there. The cohort I like to be a cleric or wizard or anyone with utility powers (Earth to stone and fabricate eliminates all building expenses) when I need something done who also wouldn't make a bad general for my army. I wouldn't control my followers or my cohort of course, just guaranteed loyalty. Or at least guaranteed honesty when they stop being loyal and leave whatever reason they may have to.

Tacoma
2008-12-12, 07:33 PM
Owning land is, for reasons of plot hook, worthless. You need to just own or rent a small space underground in the middle of a big city where you do all your business. Or, preferably, in some other dimension.

It's why people generally don't like having character friends and family. They'll all just get kidnapped or killed by the BBEG. It's like walking around with targets painted on your armor where you keep all your organs.

Tacoma
2008-12-12, 07:36 PM
Actually, Leadership would work better as a simple bonus to your dealings with employees and followers. Actually acquiring the followers is up to you in roleplaying. You still have to pay them, take care of them, etc. But Leadership would give you such a significant bonus that you don't have to worry about disloyalty unless Very Bad Things happened or you were a ruthless maniac.

Crow
2008-12-12, 07:53 PM
I allow leadership in all my 3.5 games. I also have players who are mature enough not to abuse it, which it looks like a lot of groups have trouble with.

Occasionally, the players want to have somebody who they can trust to look over their holdings while they are off adventuring, without all the hassle of putting together elaborate betrayal contingencies and such. The leadership feat works well for this, and usually my players don't bother picking it up unless they have assets that require management and don't want to be tied down to them.

Every once in a while, a player will have their cohort tag along on an adventure, and as long as it doesn't slow things down, I don't have a problem with it. If the player is not very familiar with the cohort's capabilities, and it is slowing down the game every time the player's turn comes around, then I'll ask the player to have their cohort (temporarily) bow out for the sake of the game.

Yukitsu
2008-12-12, 07:56 PM
I don't think it's NO benefit, it's just a "you can't use it DURING an adventure" benefit. Having your followers mannaing a stronghold or something gives your character and the party a fairly safe and reliable place to spend downtime, a base of opertions where, say, the party wizard can construct a lab, the party cleric can build a shrine, and make it easier for NPCs to locate the PCs (which could be either good or bad depending on the NPC in question). It could also provide the DM with new adventure hooks and ideas (PCs are a LOT more likely to take interest in a war, for example, if thier stronghold is in the enemy army's way).

There are rules for that without the feat in stronghold builders guide. You don't need leadership at all for that purpose. You need, IIRC, 12 gp per month for a professional and loyal attendee.

Yahzi
2008-12-12, 08:05 PM
Actually, Leadership would work better as a simple bonus to your dealings with employees and followers. Actually acquiring the followers is up to you in roleplaying.
That's exactly what I do. Leadership is a +5 morale bonus.

The idea that you can't hire followers/soldiers/mercenaries seems kind of unsustainable when your character is killing things because the King promised them some gold for doing so.

Tacoma
2008-12-12, 08:06 PM
Oh goodness. One character I played was a Ranger/Thief (2E) who secretly paid the contractor under the table when the Fighter built his castle in the wilderness. I had a set of sub-basements dug into the bedrock a hundred feet down. Bliss.

I had by 2d6 high-level Thieves and rolled them up. Oh look, some of them have really great stats. Now my Ranger followers ... oh wow. A weretiger.

So I had this weretiger archer (who the DM agreed I could pick it's "other" race, so I chose Wood Elf), a High Elf Fighter / Magic-User / Thief with a TON of proficiencies, a Deep Gnome who I told to drop his class levels and start over as a Monk (again, I rolled a Gnome follower and the DM said I could pick subrace), a Pixie who I told to train as a Cleric, and a second Deep Gnome who was a regular henchman who I had train as a Cleric / Healer. The Gnome Cleric and the Elf F/M/T each had a familiar.

I had each one on a 3x5 index card, but the mage needed one card for his spellbook and each caster needed a card for his memorized list. I had 9 cards just for them, a card for items kept in my stronghold / reverse was items kept in my portable hole, a card for various long-term spell effects ... I bought these clear plastic page-holders that were supposed to hold photographs but I thought the cells were 3x5, turns out they were too small. And I stopped playing the character before I could use them anyway.

Anyway I had my character and 4 others on the board. The pixie was invisible all the time and I had her with me. The two familiars never really left their masters. But I could have fielded another 20 or so sucky followers if they weren't busy administering my bank back home. The castle was soon surrounded by a village, and refugees from elsewhere turned it into a solid town. We built a wall around it and towers and stuff. And it turns out all those industrious citizens were quite willing to accept loans at reasonable interest rates. And the bank managed to have about four GP in loans out working for every GP in the vault, which is about how banks of the 16th and 17th century ran.

These days, banks deal mostly with this "phantom money".

ken-do-nim
2008-12-12, 09:13 PM
I just realized the converse problem. If it so happens in the adventure that a character has an npc tag along with them, that character can be accused of getting a feat for free, especially if there's another player in the game who had to spend a feat on leadership to get that benefit. The Leadership feat therefore can interfere with the plot/gameflow and hamstring the DM's ability to run a game.

Saph
2008-12-12, 09:20 PM
I just realized the converse problem. If it so happens in the adventure that a character has an npc tag along with them, that character can be accused of getting a feat for free, especially if there's another player in the game who had to spend a feat on leadership to get that benefit. The Leadership feat therefore can interfere with the plot/gameflow and hamstring the DM's ability to run a game.

The way I usually deal with this is by watching the PCs VERY carefully to see how they treat the NPC. Players who are nice to the NPC get help, players who treat them as mobile furniture don't.

So getting NPC aid isn't so much a free feat as a reward for good behaviour. It always amazes me how many players behave like Bob and Brian from the Knights of the Dinner Table when it comes to NPC dealings. :)

- Saph

Roderick_BR
2008-12-12, 09:21 PM
No. If my players want to hire someone, or need an npc to follow them around, I'll provide it, not make it "buyable" with a feat. My group didn't use the follower rules from AD&D as well.

Hal
2008-12-12, 11:11 PM
I had one character I was going to use it with, and the DM was okay with it (I ended up switching to a new one because this guy wasn't going to fit in well). Basically, I took Leadership with a flaw. The flaw ended up giving the DM lots of leverage to control or remove the cohort if he felt the need to (among other things), so it seemed like a fair trade off. If he did take the cohort away, I wouldn't be out the feat, but the flaw made sure I wasn't getting a huge advantage.

Kizara
2008-12-13, 12:07 AM
As others have said, its depedant on the size of the group.

It works well with a very small amount of people (1-3), but not in a more standard sized group.

If you are struggling to give people enough face time as it is, you don't need to introduce more characters or give one guy 2 characters.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-13, 12:42 AM
I've used Leadership as a player, and allowed it as a DM, and finally decided that it's a pointless feat. In a small group, players should be allowed to play two PCs. That way you don't have that weird cohort XP anomaly to worry about, or the weirdness of having party member levels all over the place, or the question of how much and and which loot to give cohorts. This is what I did when I had small groups, and it worked fine. Not much rp, but it wasn't a deep rp game anyway.

If the campaign is about politics, wars and resource management, Leadership still shouldn't exist. All PCs should get a certain number of loyal followers, just so that all PCs can participate in the primary dynamic of the campaign.

TS

RavKal
2008-12-13, 12:51 AM
I once played a wizard who used the Leadership feat to justify his warforged monk bodyguard. Did it make the game harder? Not really, since it was a warforged. It all really depends on how you use the feat.

Kizara
2008-12-13, 12:56 AM
I've used Leadership as a player, and allowed it as a DM, and finally decided that it's a pointless feat. In a small group, players should be allowed to play two PCs. That way you don't have that weird cohort XP anomaly to worry about, or the weirdness of having party member levels all over the place, or the question of how much and and which loot to give cohorts. This is what I did when I had small groups, and it worked fine. Not much rp, but it wasn't a deep rp game anyway.

If the campaign is about politics, wars and resource management, Leadership still shouldn't exist. All PCs should get a certain number of loyal followers, just so that all PCs can participate in the primary dynamic of the campaign.

TS

In my current campaign about the latter things you mention, I took the leadership feat to get some elite, no-upkeep troops and a loyal lieutenant. That doesn't mean the troops he got aren't like 1/10th his total force and he couldn't have recruited them earlier, but it was useful to represent people that choose to follow him because of his exceptional leadership as opposed to just being paid soldiers.

chiasaur11
2008-12-13, 12:57 AM
I once played a wizard who used the Leadership feat to justify his warforged monk bodyguard. Did it make the game harder? Not really, since it was a warforged. It all really depends on how you use the feat.

Also:

It was a monk.

Kizara
2008-12-13, 01:00 AM
Also:

It was a monk.

It didn't occur to him that clerics make assloads better bodyguards? All the healing and the like? Also: not monks.

chiasaur11
2008-12-13, 01:03 AM
It didn't occur to him that clerics make assloads better bodyguards? All the healing and the like? Also: not monks.

Ah, but a monk as a cohort wouldn't unbalance any game.

So it lets you have somebody to witty banter off of without the DM killing them for unbalancing the game.

Eloel
2008-12-13, 01:27 AM
It didn't occur to him that clerics make assloads better bodyguards? All the healing and the like? Also: not monks.

Dragon Shamans make even better cohorts. Two auras, good healing, also able to fight.

Magnax
2008-12-13, 01:39 AM
As others have said, its depedant on the size of the group.

It works well with a very small amount of people (1-3), but not in a more standard sized group.

If you are struggling to give people enough face time as it is, you don't need to introduce more characters or give one guy 2 characters.

There is a way to make the Leadership feat a more flexible option, if the group's size is an issue. I think this was suggested on the DnD website, possibly as a "Save my game" article.

The GM basically picks a group size - let's call it 'X' - which is the ideal number of players per session. Any player who takes the Leadership feat also takes a secondary feat (something simple, like Improved Initiative or Lightning Reflexes). Then, if the number of players at a session is less than X, the player gains the benefit of Leadership, gets their cohort, and doesn't get to use their secondary feat. If the number of players is greater than or equal to X, they lose the benefits of Leadership, the cohort stays "off-screen" for the session, and the player gets to use their secondary feat instead.

This method is especially useful if the players have hectic schedules and the number of players per session varies a lot. Of course, you now have the problem of finding ways to weave the cohorts in and out of the story at random, and finding a good value for X could take some trial and error.

monty
2008-12-13, 01:42 AM
There is a way to make the Leadership feat a more flexible option, if the group's size is an issue. I think this was suggested on the DnD website, possibly as a "Save my game" article.

The GM basically picks a group size - let's call it 'X' - which is the ideal number of players per session. Any player who takes the Leadership feat also takes a secondary feat (something simple, like Improved Initiative or Lightning Reflexes). Then, if the number of players at a session is less than X, the player gains the benefit of Leadership, gets their cohort, and doesn't get to use their secondary feat. If the number of players is greater than or equal to X, they lose the benefits of Leadership, the cohort stays "off-screen" for the session, and the player gets to use their secondary feat instead.

This method is especially useful if the players have hectic schedules and the number of players per session varies a lot. Of course, you now have the problem of finding ways to weave the cohorts in and out of the game at random, and finding a good value for X could take some trial and error.

Why not just have the extra players' characters be run by the players that are there? My group does that all the time, and it never causes us problems.

Magnax
2008-12-13, 01:52 AM
Why not just have the extra players' characters be run by the players that are there? My group does that all the time, and it never causes us problems.

That's also an option. I've never actually used the method I mentioned, actually, I just thought it was a neat idea.

I've used your approach before, but there have been the occasional problems where one player who wasn't at a session didn't like how the players who were there were running their character. In one case the character of an absent player was killed... that didn't go over too well. But generally, yes, it works pretty well.

Stephen_E
2008-12-13, 05:52 AM
My current PC is picking up Leadership soon which will be the 1st time I've seen Leadership in a game.

It's a 3 person party and my Druid/Psychic Warrior/Beastmaster/Blackguard will be using Leadership to make his Fiendish Servant/Animal Companion (a variation of Devoted Tracker CA) into his Cohort. This does mean after 16th lev my Cohort/FS/AC will gain HD twice as fast as me, but it's a small party and I've screwed over my character build to do it.

Don't know what I'll do with the followers but I do own a ship so I guess I can take the crew as followers. As a rule my party are often at least as positive towards my animal companions/cohorts, and in this case they tend to like my Animal Companion a lot more (the players also claim I roleplay the companion better :smallredface: )

Stephen E

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-13, 11:58 AM
ok have a question

does everyone let the players make their own cohort? I haven't I have let them impose limits at times to what they will accept. (magic hatign swordsman will not take on a primary caster, but woul go psionic if felt the urge to go tt route)

Yahzi
2008-12-13, 12:04 PM
does everyone let the players make their own cohort?
In my world, money and XP are interchangable; so if they want their own custom follower, they have to build him from the ground up. If they pay for the class levels, they can find a peasant and promote him to whatever weird class they want, and as long as they treat him well, he'll be loyal.

If they just want to hire people, though, they have to take what they can get.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-13, 12:15 PM
In my world, money and XP are interchangable; so if they want their own custom follower, they have to build him from the ground up. If they pay for the class levels, they can find a peasant and promote him to whatever weird class they want, and as long as they treat him well, he'll be loyal.

If they just want to hire people, though, they have to take what they can get.

god that remins me of an evil campaign I ran where thy had taken a surviving rogue gave him a spellbook off a dead mage and said learn magic or else. they wanted to groom a cohort that way. was funny but nobody had leadership and they werent playing characters who were in any way social. needless to say betrayal and comedy ensued.

Kizara
2008-12-13, 12:17 PM
ok have a question

does everyone let the players make their own cohort? I haven't I have let them impose limits at times to what they will accept. (magic hatign swordsman will not take on a primary caster, but woul go psionic if felt the urge to go tt route)

Depends on the game.

With my most recent character, I gave the DM guidelines about the sort of class, role, race and general ability I was looking for. He took this and ran further with it then I ever dreamed (I wanted a half-elf bard, I got a half-nymph rogue//bard). Really though, it worked out pretty well.

With my previous character, the campaign had a high focus on optimization and strategic challenges, and I was literally allowed to build my cohort. My Czilla picked up an IotSFV wizard and was essentially unstoppable. I was happy, my DM had fun, and it was a fun challenge running 2 highly-optimized full casters to their potential.

So, depends on what your group is looking for and how much time/effort/interest the DM has to devote to your cohort.

Yukitsu
2008-12-13, 12:19 PM
ok have a question

does everyone let the players make their own cohort? I haven't I have let them impose limits at times to what they will accept. (magic hatign swordsman will not take on a primary caster, but woul go psionic if felt the urge to go tt route)

Yes they do. That's because they are being designed to fill in a party role in an otherwise under ECL party.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-13, 12:25 PM
Yes they do. That's because they are being designed to fill in a party role in an otherwise under ECL party.


and if there are no party roles lacking? (meatshield, arcane, divine, skillmonkey are all covered.) nothing the desperately needs to be filled by an npc, do you still leave it to the player?

Yukitsu
2008-12-13, 12:27 PM
and if there are no party roles lacking? (meatshield, arcane, divine, skillmonkey are all covered.) nothing the desperately needs to be filled by an npc, do you still leave it to the player?

We have a 3 person group. We don't ever really have all four properly filled. We also use melee. None of us ever meatshield. That's what purchased mules are for.

In the last game, we had 5 people, and no one took leadership, and I project it will be the same in the next campaign with that DM. We anticipate that we will have 5 players, but as a twist, we're all playing wizards.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-13, 12:33 PM
We have a 3 person group. We don't ever really have all four properly filled. We also use melee. None of us ever meatshield. That's what purchased mules are for.

In the last game, we had 5 people, and no one took leadership, and I project it will be the same in the next campaign with that DM. We anticipate that we will have 5 players, but as a twist, we're all playing wizards.

fair enough.

and yipes 5 wizards than can either be really good or really bad.

Yukitsu
2008-12-13, 12:38 PM
fair enough.

and yipes 5 wizards than can either be really good or really bad.

Should be OK, even after our DM heavily, heavily nerfed wizards. Two players are good at what they do, I'm paranoid as all get out about survival, and another is a bit of a munchkin, but we don't hold it against him. The only problem is our fifth wheel wizard, who thinks that fireball is the be all and end all, and wonders why we all do more in combat than he does. It may have something to do with the fact that we all actually know the rules for fireball. :smallannoyed:

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-14, 11:00 AM
Should be OK, even after our DM heavily, heavily nerfed wizards. Two players are good at what they do, I'm paranoid as all get out about survival, and another is a bit of a munchkin, but we don't hold it against him. The only problem is our fifth wheel wizard, who thinks that fireball is the be all and end all, and wonders why we all do more in combat than he does. It may have something to do with the fact that we all actually know the rules for fireball. :smallannoyed:


has he played long? give him time plus the rest of you will show a lot of useful spells. he will learn. the paranoid mage sounds fun to play (had one campaign where we were constantly attacked every nigh, was alarm, bags of flour emptied on the ground/floor , and poor restless nights of gettign attacked.)

Yukitsu
2008-12-14, 11:19 AM
He's been around for about a year. Still hasn't read the PHB, which is irritating to say the least, and doesn't seem to follow any examples. We basically are small enough a group that having that person is preferable to not, even if it's only because his characters absorb some damage.

UglyPanda
2008-12-14, 01:17 PM
I don't allow it nor like it unless everyone is taking it. I can't seem the find the right PC/cohort balance which doesn't end up marginalizing one of the two. It's also one of the strongest feats in the game and takes focus away from the other players by virtue of its existence. Of course, if everyone is taking it and has a cohort, then I have less problems.

valadil
2008-12-14, 01:35 PM
I've never had a player request the Leadership feat. I've seen a player request it in another GM's game though. The GM allowed it, but made the cohort for the PC so as to prevent cheese. This ruling seemed fair.

Sir Giacomo
2008-12-14, 01:42 PM
The leadership feat was put into the DMG because it is an optional rule. Do you allow it, or do you prefer to have npcs tag along with the party in a more plot-driven fashion?


Well, for a start, the leadership feat is no optional rule. But just like everything providing your character with some very close relationship with an npc it points out the necessity to work together more closely with the DM on this one (since the DM runs all npcs).

Probably it is meant to provide for the cost of a feat to to all players some sort of companion if they so wish. It definitely has differences to the animal companions, familiars or special mounts that some of the core classes get automatically. But it's definitely not more or less powerful - for each specific situation, it has different advantages and disadvantages. A two levels lower spellcasting cohort, for instance, may be able to do more stuff than a hedgehog familiar, but is much less loyal than, said familiar or a paladin's mount (apart from the latters' special powers besides).

One aspect that leadership provides and goes beyond the companion-like thing is quite a few low-level followers. This points more to "characters build countries"-like play and could be easily left out. But anyhow, the 100 some followers are not really something to build empires with; it's a bit of an in-between-thing that would make player character groups just still managaeble (for instance, 4 players each have the leadership feat and do their adventures with some sort of 500-strong mercenary "group" and clear ruins with it/have expeditions like on three ships etc.).

The DM can of course also always houserule that there are no companions around at all (including no familiars etc), so he has less workload or feels there are enough players at the table. Then he could either use the alternative rules of PHB II or just give the classes who lose their class companions a bonus feat.

Personally, most of the times I neither play as a pc or DM with leadership, but that is simply entirely campaign-specific. When the campaign is right ("Hire 200 sailors and chart this unknown territory with three of the king's ships") there is no problem at all about it.

- Giacomo

Thurbane
2008-12-14, 06:39 PM
I've got a side question for DMs on this topic:

If you do allow the Leadership feat for PCs, do you run the cohorts as NPCs or let the players control them?

dwagiebard
2008-12-14, 06:46 PM
I would allow it, but only as an NPC.

I think it's completely silly to just let a player have control of two characters.

Yukitsu
2008-12-14, 07:14 PM
I've got a side question for DMs on this topic:

If you do allow the Leadership feat for PCs, do you run the cohorts as NPCs or let the players control them?

I generally control mine, but that's because, as was mentioned earlier, I take it when we have 3 players.

only1doug
2008-12-14, 07:22 PM
Well, for a start, the leadership feat is no optional rule. But just like everything providing your character with some very close relationship with an npc it points out the necessity to work together more closely with the DM on this one (since the DM runs all npcs).

Have you read the section just above the feat in the DMG recently? Pg 106

Unlike other feats this depends heavily on the social setting and group dynamics. you're free to disallow it if it would disrupt your campaign. be sure to consider the effect of a PC having a cohort.
thats an awful lot of reminders of for "no optional rule".




The DM can of course also always houserule that there are no companions around at all (including no familiars etc), so he has less workload or feels there are enough players at the table. Then he could either use the alternative rules of PHB II or just give the classes who lose their class companions a bonus feat.


he could also houserule that casting spells deals damage to the caster, that the moon is bright purple, that gravity works sideways, this is all irrelevant to the leadership feat as is your comment.
As long as the players are aware of the GM's houserules before generating their characters they can choose what class to build intelligently.

Stephen_E
2008-12-14, 08:19 PM
It just occurred to me that you can get something of a repeating cycle in this.

You take leadership and have your Cohort be a Chrisma based NPC who also takes leadership, and have your 6th level follower/s take leadership. With some finagling to mavimise the additional bonuses to Leadership scores, and all theose taking Leadership having maxed Charismas with Cha boosting items, you can build a army of several hundred followers by the time you're level 15.
Base Assumptions - All PC/NPCs taking Leadership have base 18 Cha and use all their stat increases to increase Cha as well as having Cha items form +2 to +6. You have a PR organisation promoting the renown of your people so from lev 9+ they all have great renown. They all are casters so can claim the "special power" bonus. You have a stronghold with chapterhouse barracks so everyone can claim the stronghold bonuse. Make sure they're fair and generous.

PC - Lev 15 LS (Leadership score) 25+. 161 followers lev 1-5
1 Cohort (Alpha) lev 13, 2 followers lev 6.
Followers LS 16. 28 followers x2

Cohort Alpha Lev 13, LS 25+. 161 followers lev 1-5
1 Cohort (Beta) lev 11, 2 followers lev 6
Followers LS 16. 28 followers x2

Cohort Beta, lev 11, LS 24. 132 followers lev 1-5
1 Cohort (Delta) lev 9, 1 follower lev 6
Follower LS 16. 28 followers

Cohort Delta, lev 9, LS 22. 90 followers lev 1-5
1 Cohort (Gamma) lev 7, 1 follower lev 6
Follower LS 16. 28 followers

Cohort Gamma, lev 7, LS 17. 35 followers lev 1-5
1 Cohort (Kappa) lev 5

Total
747 followers lev 1-5
6 followers lev 6
Cohorts lev 5, 7, 9, 11, 13.
PC lev 15
759 people before counting special mounts, animal companions and familiars.

That's an army!

Stephen E

Thurbane
2008-12-14, 08:36 PM
Total
747 followers lev 1-5
6 followers lev 6
Cohorts lev 5, 7, 9, 11, 13.
PC lev 15
759 people before counting special mounts, animal companions and familiars.

That's an army!

Stephen E
Well, IMHO it's not unreasonable for a 15th level character to lead an army. Heck, low-level Aristocrat Kings often have armies dozens of times this size at their disposal...

Crow
2008-12-14, 09:19 PM
I've got a side question for DMs on this topic:

If you do allow the Leadership feat for PCs, do you run the cohorts as NPCs or let the players control them?

I allow the player to control the cohort in combat and issue orders to the cohort as their character would. I control the cohort's personality and dialogue.

I also treat a cohort as a loyal companion. I don't take the opportunity to punish the player by having his cohort backstab him or anything like that, unless the player is very abusive to the cohort (In the case of a cohort attracted to an evil character, the cohort may view mild abuse as "paying his dues".).

Sir Giacomo
2008-12-15, 03:46 PM
Have you read the section just above the feat in the DMG recently? Pg 106

thats an awful lot of reminders of for "no optional rule".

Well...only to a certain extent. The wording is made in such way to suggest to the DM that in some instances the feat is simply not appropriate - not that it is an optional rule. For instance, if the DM runs a core game set in medieval Japan, likely there will be not exactly the weapons available listed in the PHB.
There are way more explicit areas in the DMG that even use the word "optional", for instance the WHOLE entry on prestige classes (check DMG p. 176). Still, these prestige classes, in particular core ones, are often part of builds.
If it is OK that many players with core wizards take the loremaster and then archmage prestige classes at higher levels, why then should leadership be such a problem?


he could also houserule that casting spells deals damage to the caster, that the moon is bright purple, that gravity works sideways, this is all irrelevant to the leadership feat as is your comment.
As long as the players are aware of the GM's houserules before generating their characters they can choose what class to build intelligently.

The houserules you mention are vastly different, since leadership is assumed part of the game and its balance. Therefore, taking it away has consequences (like taking away other npc companions the pcs have, like familiars). It's both a matter of fluff AND balance.
If as a DM you do not like the feat - no problem. But then you should also disallow npc companions in general. Otherwise it's unfair. (or, if you wish to keep it very close, you can simply let the classes without class companion get for a feat a familiar- in case of a bard or cleric, or an animal companion or special mount).

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2008-12-15, 03:49 PM
It just occurred to me that you can get something of a repeating cycle in this.

You take leadership and have your Cohort be a Chrisma based NPC who also takes leadership, and have your 6th level follower/s take leadership.

(...)

Total
747 followers lev 1-5
6 followers lev 6
Cohorts lev 5, 7, 9, 11, 13.
PC lev 15
759 people before counting special mounts, animal companions and familiars.

That's an army!

Stephen E

Yes, that's a possiblity to provide players with truly feudal-like tasks and powers.
However, the design of the cohort and followers is entirely up to the DM, not the player. So the DM decides whether any cohort or follower happens to have leadership as well.

- Giacomo

Triaxx
2008-12-15, 07:51 PM
Two facts: 1) As a DM, I am fairly loose, and willingly accept derailment of my plot. My players pretty much demand I do so. 2) I tend to run campaigns above and beyond the overpowered end of the spectruum.

So with those mentioned, I've only ever had one problem with Leadership. I ran a campaign once, with 20 players, and 20 PC's. Each group was split up so they each had a DM, and would play seperately, until the final battles, where we met up, first as sub groups, then as one massive group for a weekend long final battle.

I planned the final battle for 20 characters. I ended up retooling it for something close to 45. On the fly. Several of the player's were Druids, most of them used Leadership to gain a cohort. Who gained an animal companion of their own.

One player however, came to me with a question shortly before the final battle, during the Friday night prep party. She was one of the druids, and I had helped her with the character on the first session, some year and a half prior. She had Leadership. One cohort, and an Animal companion. The Animal Companion and Cohort each had Leadership. And so on. And so on. Everything with class levels was druid, had Wild Shape, and Natural Spell. And Natural Bond. *shudder*

She managed, to bowl the dragonS I had planned, Two Whites, a Black and an Ancient Wyrm Red over all on her own, without bothering anyone else's characters. I swarmed her with a herd of Damn Crabs to keep her busy and sent her off with one of the helper DM's. Of course the rest of the fight went fairly well.

Michaelos
2008-12-15, 07:56 PM
I do. Primarily, to keep numbers of people high, since I have only 1-2 people I play with regularly, so having Cohorts with you is pretty vital to have the necessary power to work with. Having each Player take Leadership, and having a DM PC, keeps the number of characters in between 3 and 5. What I don't recommend is having Friendly NPCs also have the leadership feat. At one point, I had 1 PC, her Cohort, Another PC, his Cohort, A friendly NPC, HIS cohort, and then also a DM PC. That ended up just getting ridiculous, particularly considering that some of those people can have familiars or animal companions.

Leadership is also nice for having "Follower Adventures" In case you want a change of pace from fighting world bending craziness, send out your Level 6 Warrior, 2 Level 5 Warriors (One of whom rides a Black Bear, which uses up a level 3 slot), and Level 3 Bard, and your two level 1 Bards to do some of the easier adventuring for you. (They all had names, whereas the rest of the her folder of NPC character sheets are things like "Hinan Masterchief, Michaelian Defender, Moogle Squad")

Stephen_E
2008-12-15, 08:01 PM
Why I wouldn't exactly call Leadership "optional rules" it is the only feat that specifys in the PHB description of the feat that you must check with your GM before taking the feat.

It also notes that creating the Cohort and Followers is done by the player and DM working together. It's not a case of the DM saying "this is what you get" or the player saying "this is what I'll have".

Stephen E

Danin
2008-12-16, 01:05 AM
A character I plan on playing as soon as we get the campaign off the ground is a Marshal 7 / Legendary Leader 5 who maxes out his leadership score. He is the lord of a small kingdom and the followers represent all notable NPCs in his castle, the kingdom's military, a druid/ ranger wife and husband (respectively), a friendly barbarian tribe and a small clan of wood elves in the forest nearby. My cohort is a knight, potentially going into tactical soldier, who I will be playing as opposed to my DM.

I have included detailed information on my character's parents (Who are both still alive), his brother, wife, 4 children and best friends. The followers watch the keep whilst I travel the countryside spreading the cause of good, along side my cohort, and I manage state affairs by means of a magical orb that allows me to project my image and mind into the throne room and state room and allows me to contact my wife who rules in my stead.

I feel like any character, it should be up to the DM to arbitrate power levels and players to build characters within reason. If I felt that my character would slow down game play in a significant manner then I wouldn't be playing him, but as it stands I don't suspect an issue. I'm also good with voices, which is nice, so differentiating between the two won't be a problem.

(PS. I realize what a huge target I am drawing for my DM with including my family (And some extended family). I do expect some of them to die and my character will act accordingly.)

KIDS
2008-12-16, 05:36 AM
I use it, even though it's very unbalanced. But then again, what isn't? As long as it isn't used for parmesan (and I don't mean a dairy products factory), I don't mind...

Neithan
2008-12-16, 08:29 AM
I think leadership is useless. If the characters behave in a way that people want to follow their lead, they do. I don't see why the PC would have to lose a feat for that.

kamikasei
2008-12-16, 08:40 AM
I think leadership is useless. If the characters behave in a way that people want to follow their lead, they do. I don't see why the PC would have to lose a feat for that.

So that they're paying a mechanical cost for the benefit of having all those followers. Otherwise having a high charisma and roleplaying a certain way is essentially free awesome. (Well, it's awesome anyway, but free awesome with an impact on your power level.)

JellyPooga
2008-12-16, 09:12 AM
I think the Leadership feat has its place, but shouldn't be too commonly used. It is a powerful feat, as well everyone knows, and is very abusable. However, it is also a feat that allows for some amazing character concepts and unique options that aren't usually available to the "Heroic Adventurer Party".

For example, one character I've always wanted to play (with the Leadership feat) is the leader of a small mercenary band. His cohort is his trusted lieutenant and pretty much follows him around everywhere (unless ordered otherwise). His followers tend to stay back at the camp or are strung along to guard key locations, rather than being active 'party members'. The character and his cronies are all Kobolds (I suppose another Small race would work just as well with what I have in mind, but a band of mercenary Kobolds just apealed to me!) and focus on martial classes (or Warrior for the followers, I suppose) with abilities revolving around team-tactics (Swarm-Fighting, Phalanx Fighting, Formation Expert, Wolf-Pack, etc.). As his Leadership Score increases and he gets access to higher level followers, those higher level followers are, in fact, his original lower level followers 'levelling up' whilst green recruits fill the place they once filled. His men have the abilities they do, not because he's hired people with those abilities, but because he's trained them himself (in downtime/off-screen, of course).

Technically I could achieve the same character without the Leadership Feat, but his lieutenant and loyal band of mercs are so crucial to the character concept that it just makes sense for them to be represented as an extension of the character (Feat) rather than walking equipment (Hired Goons).

Like a great many things in d&d (or most RPGs, I guess), it is abusable. It is also just a tool for players and DMs to implement the game the are playing. A power drill can be a dangerous thing, but it's meant to be used for making holes in walls and wood, not other peoples heads...:smallwink:

bosssmiley
2008-12-16, 09:45 AM
The leadership feat was put into the DMG because it is an optional rule.

Huh? The hireling and henchman rules (aka 'followers' and 'cohort' in 3E-ese) are in the DMG for a reason. This is where they've been ever since the BX/AD&D days. That choice of location (and the Leadership modifier table) should be a honking big clue as to how to run sidekick characters. :smallwink:

As for the question being scared off by the power abuse potential and/or complexity of the Leadership feat:

I played BECMI and 1/2E. In those days you were expected to dungeon crawl mob-handed (primary characters, henchmen, hirelings, mules, etc). Mid-high level characters got a guild/army/zoo as a class feature at level 8-9. It was totally expected that you turn up to a giant/dragon fight with a posse of knights as ablative armour plus a small army of bowmen in tow.

It got crazier. In 2E "Birthright" regent characters could have an entire kingdom at their command from level 1. That's literally thousands of peons in the field, backed up by battle spells (multiply-widened/-enlarged/-chained castings) and realm magic (pre-epic Epic spells). After that anything Leadership can throw at you, up to and including cohort casting cheese, is small beer.

</macho chest-beating> :smallamused:

What kept all this lunacy in check? Well, there was the less manic power progression of the older system, but the main check on crony abuse were the Morale rules. If you got your 'followers' and 'cohorts' in harm's way or gypped them on the loot division there was a good chance they'd run away, surrender, or switch sides in a crisis. Heck, the rules were nuanced enough to adjudicate whether your right hand man would turn coat on you when the BBEG made him a better offer.

It's a real shame that 3E has no proper Morale rules (and the hopeless kludge in "Heroes of Battle" really doesn't count); they would make Leadership so much less of a fiat-fest.

Non-D&D, but totally related: When talking about Leadership I'm always put in mind of the sidebar in the "Pendragon" RPG that looks at how many people it took to get a team of 4 knights in the field at a tourney or battle. Between arming and body squires, grooms, cooks, herald, smith and muleskinners you ended up looking at a travelling roadshow of about 30-35 people.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-16, 12:31 PM
I think leadership is useless. If the characters behave in a way that people want to follow their lead, they do. I don't see why the PC would have to lose a feat for that.

it represents spending off time developing the reputation and name recognition to gather followers/cohort drawn just to be round the legend you have become rather than training in a combat/metamagic/crafting feat.

DigoDragon
2008-12-16, 01:21 PM
So, as long as you're generous, have a base, are fair, are renowned, don't mind playing a weird-raced geezer, and have a DM with several loose screws, you too can have followers who are as powerful as you are.

I believe the DM would need a few loose screws since you normally can't have a cohort less then 2 levels behind you. :smallsmile:

I allow the Leadership feat, but my players don't take it. They do quite well with just the occasonal NPCs so they spend their feats elsewhere. Just once did a player take Leadership, but only so he could get a "loyal mail carrier" to take care of the mail needed to be sent between himself and important NPCs during the course of that particular campaign. He didn't trust standard NPC mail carriers with his documents. I ran the cohort, but played out all resonable instructions from the player and he was perfectly happy with that.

BTW, the mail he was sending around was in an attempt to gather the followers that Leadership grants into a religious crusade against a friendly kingdom. The PC got himself and all his followers killed by the BBEG who was hiding out at that kingdom (The PC did know this). The BBEG was later proclaimed a hero by the kingdom. The confusion in that outcome was priceless. :smallbiggrin:


Incidently, in our current Forgotten Realms campaign the player of the party rogue is about to move out of state and his character just got killed. I was pondering taking Leadership to get a cohort rogue to fill in the vacancy. Could also double as a body guard for the baby prince we're currently trying to smuggle to the elves.

Neithan
2008-12-16, 01:50 PM
So that they're paying a mechanical cost for the benefit of having all those followers. Otherwise having a high charisma and roleplaying a certain way is essentially free awesome. (Well, it's awesome anyway, but free awesome with an impact on your power level.)

I don't think of such followers as parts of the PCs resources, but as part of the environment. They are allies and I highly encourage players to form connections with the other inhabitants of the game world.
When the PCs manage to get positions of influence and power within the world, than the campaign will be about a group of lesser lords instead of a group of elite-soldiers, mercenaries or adventurers.
And I think such followers aren't really that useful. They are nice to keep the keep clean and man the guardposts, but when the PCs are 8th or 10th level, their loyal minions can only run from any threat that might chalange the PCs, so they will have to deal with it themselves.

It may impact the power level, though I don't think by much. But why would that be a bad thing?

kamikasei
2008-12-16, 02:25 PM
And I think such followers aren't really that useful. They are nice to keep the keep clean and man the guardposts, but when the PCs are 8th or 10th level, their loyal minions can only run from any threat that might chalange the PCs, so they will have to deal with it themselves.

Looking at the Leadership feat, that's true of followers, but not of cohorts. More on that below...


It may impact the power level, though I don't think by much. But why would that be a bad thing?

My point is that, playing with your approach, by making a charismatic character you get to have loyal followers and allies to help you out - which makes you more powerful - but have to pay no mechanical cost for it. This gives you an unfair edge over less charismatic fellow PCs (in terms of how much you contribute to combat, that is).

Now, if your followers are all much lower-level than you this is less of an issue since, as you say, they'll be playing a background role. But can you not get higher-level people to follow you? How many? How loyally? When do you have to start factoring it in to your combat worth? How do you do that?

Viewed in that way the leadership feat has a useful role to play; it just doesn't do its job terribly well.

monty
2008-12-16, 02:43 PM
I believe the DM would need a few loose screws since you normally can't have a cohort less then 2 levels behind you. :smallsmile:

However, followers have no such limitation, and with 21 Leadership, you get a 6th level follower. If you can get that score at 6th level, and make the follower an exact copy of you, and make their 6th level follower an exact copy, and so on...you win.

Blackfang108
2008-12-16, 02:53 PM
I'm looking at taking the leadership feat for an upcoming character, a level 22 Sorcerer.

Just the basic Leadership feat, not Epic.

Basically, I'll be doing this so that my Old Sorceror's valet has stats. a level 17 Elan Barbarian.

you know, so I can open the bigger doors.

And carry around my stuff.

DigoDragon
2008-12-16, 05:21 PM
However, followers have no such limitation, and with 21 Leadership, you get a 6th level follower. If you can get that score at 6th level, and make the follower an exact copy of you, and make their 6th level follower an exact copy, and so on...you win.

I'm not sure it would work that way...
From the SRD:

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.

I interpret this to mean that under normal conditions*, followers cannot be higher then 5 levels behind you. So if you are 6th level and you have a really high Leadership score (i.e. 21), you still couldn't get more then 1st level followers. This also makes sense from a balancing standpoint to prevent low-level characters from amassing an instant army with just one feat. :smallsmile:

*I suppose it is possible to have a generous DM that allows higher level followers, but I believe that becomes unbalanced quickly.

Stephen_E
2008-12-16, 05:22 PM
However, followers have no such limitation, and with 21 Leadership, you get a 6th level follower. If you can get that score at 6th level, and make the follower an exact copy of you, and make their 6th level follower an exact copy, and so on...you win.

Do the mechanics.

You need a leadership score of 21 to get a 6th lev follower.
Lev 6
Great Renown +2
Fairness and generosity +1
Special Power +1
Has a Stronghold ect +2

thats a leadership score of 12 + your Cha bonus.
To get the LS 21 you need a Cha score of 28!

Would you care to tell us how a 6th lev chracter gets a Cha score of 28?

Stephen E

monty
2008-12-16, 05:33 PM
I'm not sure it would work that way...
From the SRD:


I interpret this to mean that under normal conditions*, followers cannot be higher then 5 levels behind you. So if you are 6th level and you have a really high Leadership score (i.e. 21), you still couldn't get more then 1st level followers. This also makes sense from a balancing standpoint to prevent low-level characters from amassing an instant army with just one feat. :smallsmile:

*I suppose it is possible to have a generous DM that allows higher level followers, but I believe that becomes unbalanced quickly.

Notice it says "generally" twice. That doesn't mean it's a rule, just that that's the most likely situation.

monty
2008-12-16, 05:44 PM
Do the mechanics.

You need a leadership score of 21 to get a 6th lev follower.
Lev 6
Great Renown +2
Fairness and generosity +1
Special Power +1
Has a Stronghold ect +2

thats a leadership score of 12 + your Cha bonus.
To get the LS 21 you need a Cha score of 28!

Would you care to tell us how a 6th lev chracter gets a Cha score of 28?

Stephen E

Venerable Magic-Blooded (base race without a Cha penalty). 18 base + 2 template +3 age + 1 level gets you to 24, for a total Leadership of 19. Take the Ecclesiarch feat for another +2 to Leadership, and you're good.

Talya
2008-12-16, 06:15 PM
A couple things i've seen: "I don't think players should/can play two characters at once..."

Cohorts, like Animal Companions, are not directly controlled by the player. They are NPCs. The DM runs them as such. Obviously, you can issue more detailed instructions to a cohort than you can to a dumb animal, but the NPC need not always blindly obey. Cohorts provide some great roleplaying options.

I use Leadership on my sorcerer, and I allow it in games. I can see reasons why someone might not want to do so, but in general, I like it.

Thurbane
2008-12-16, 08:32 PM
A couple things i've seen: "I don't think players should/can play two characters at once..."

Cohorts, like Animal Companions, are not directly controlled by the player. They are NPCs. The DM runs them as such. Obviously, you can issue more detailed instructions to a cohort than you can to a dumb animal, but the NPC need not always blindly obey. Cohorts provide some great roleplaying options.

I use Leadership on my sorcerer, and I allow it in games. I can see reasons why someone might not want to do so, but in general, I like it.
Exactly. The are cochorts, not a vampire's dominated thralls.

If the DM lets the player control them as if they are a 2nd PC, and mindless drones with no sense of self, that's when the feat can really become problematic.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-17, 11:06 AM
Venerable Magic-Blooded (base race without a Cha penalty). 18 base + 2 template +3 age + 1 level gets you to 24, for a total Leadership of 19. Take the Ecclesiarch feat for another +2 to Leadership, and you're good.

except your character is days to the grave. you want to make a numerous set of clones of an old man who just leads people. yes you end up with large numbers, and if they are a goup of chr based casters you have an interesting low level secret society, but hardly something THAT impressive.