View Single Post

Thread: Leadership- when, where, and how?

  1. - Top - End - #1
    Ogre in the Playground
    Deepbluediver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    The US of A

    Default Leadership- when, where, and how?

    It's not a new idea that the Leadership feat in D&D 3.5 can be....a bit wonky.

    The general complaints are about the cohort being imbalanced compared to the party, and depending on the choices available it varies from nigh-useless to outclassing certain party members.

    The large horde of low-level followers tend to fill the same range of power, with the added problem that they are clunky and hard to deal with, since D&D's system was made to handle small groups, not battles set up Warhammer-style.

    Determining your Leadership score can also be problematic depending on stacking stats, bonuses, and variable effects.

    Here are some recent sentiments expressed about Leadership (taken mostly from the thread that inspired this one):

    Quote Originally Posted by Amechra View Post
    ...Leadership and the feats that improve it are bad. Not in the sense of being weak - no, in the sense of them being poorly written and straight-up unbalanced. From the moment someone takes them, it changes the focus of the game from "a group of companions going on adventures" to "a group of companions going on adventures, and, oh, one of them has a massive army that will certainly be seen as a threat by any sovereign nation they pass through."

    The main issue is that most of D&D's systems for modelling groups and civil infrastructure (such as the business rules, or the organization rules) were written after Leadership was. I mean, a feature that allowed you to design your own organization AND which tossed you Favored in Guild and the associated feats as you levelled would be cool. One that gave you the ability to muster a small group of peasants from a village and fashion them into a level-appropriate fighting force would be cool. A feature that hands you an army, through no effort of your own? Not cool, from a game design perspective.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepbluediver View Post much of a threat your army is depends on how powerful everyone else's army is. I know a lot of people run campaigns where the PC's are the only heroes in the land, and the NPC character-level curve isn't a pyramid so much as a flat plane with a spike in the middle.

    I prefer a version of things where most adults average out at around 3rd-6th level (albeit mostly in NPC classes), but anyone up to 10 or with PC levels isn't super-uncommon, which would make a horde of 1st level followers dangerous but not in a world-conquering sort of way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Almarck
    One of the things I have believe is that "leadership" should be the tool a martial player uses in order to shape the world around him.

    I have a few of my own goals for how I would want to see Leadership used, but I don't want to preclude anyone else from joining in the discussion of have it focus soley on what I'd like to say, so I'm hoping some other people will respond first.

    Thank you.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2015-01-13 at 05:03 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    It's not called common because the sense is common, it's called common because it's about common things.
    Homebrew Extended Signature!