Five Reasons to Allow Leadership

[Darcand]

Inspired by a thread on rangers that got hijacked by the subject of Leadership

1: It is one of the best plot line motivators in the core set of rules. A feat that practically requires the PC to found a base of operations AND gives you an NPC you know they will be attached to? It practically writes it's own campaigns.

2: It is self balancing. By adding a cohort that does not add to the party's average character level (by virtue of being a feat, not a person) but still needs equiptment to remain effective, the PC's WBL is effectively lowered, and with it their power level. (Note. Since Cohorts do not obtain experiance from the same pool as the PCs they don't effectively slow down the party's level progression)

3: You can't always choose your friends. Nowhere in the RAW does it state that cohorts or followers are chosen by the player, which means that it is perfectly reasonable to assign the PC a cohort of your choosing, preferably one that fills an important party role. Also, it never states that said cohort/ follower is required to be, or even should be of a PC class.

4: Cohorts are NPCs. Just like mindless undead, a player with cohorts can direct them as a free action, but it is up to the DM how the cohort follows those orders. And unlike zombies, it is reasonable to assume that cohorts will, on occassion, ignore those orders or act irrationally. Followers are even more likely to do so, and not above being diplomacyed, intimidated, or charmed into betraying the PC's trust.

5: Your Player really wants it! Feats are far more valuable then gold, in plenty of classes they are the primary form of ability advancement. Far less often is a Player willing to give up a feat to gain a second character (if that's what they wanted most people will just ask the DM to let them play a second) then they are trying to build what they feel is a super amazingly stunning character concept and it all hinges around this one little thing.....

Example: After finally tracking the bandits to their lair in a long abandonned country monestary and defeating their leader Sister Anne "Sunshine" DiLunce (cleric 6) settled on the idea of reopening the church in dedication to her chosen patron, Pelor.

After writing a letter to her superiors stating this she was thrilled when confirmation arrived, in the form of half a dozen Missionaries of the Order (expert 1) and a rather grim looking Knight of the Church calling himself Sunsman Kettle (warrior 4), "Sent to help her restore the building, spread the Sun Lord's word, and defend the good people of the region against any further wrong doings." His writ proclaimed.

Fortunet too, for Sister Anne and her companions were soon to learn why the Monestary had been abandoned, and what dark horrors still lay buried beneath it's floor. -Fin

And there you have plot hooks, a gold leech, reasonably assigned NPC class followers, and Sister Anne's player is probably happy as a lark.

[Milskidasith]

I'd like to point out that the player can recruit their cohort specifically by something that's half RAW and half RAI, since on the table it says that recruiting a cohort as an opposite alignment gives you a penalty to your leadership score.

[Myshlaevsky]

I disagree mainly with the argument that it's self-balancing. It can easily be abused, at least theoretically. I do agree about allowing leadership and the fact that it can be really nice thing to bring into a campaign.

[Darcand]

I'd like to point out that the player can recruit their cohort specifically by something that's half RAW and half RAI, since on the table it says that recruiting a cohort as an opposite alignment gives you a penalty to your leadership score.

As you state, RAI. It is perfectly viable that Sunshine is a lawful good cleric and Sunsman Kettle chaotic good. Or even Lawful evil and serving the church because he enjoys the authority it grants him. In both those cases Sunshine would receive a -2 and get a watered down version of Mr Kettle.

[Milskidasith]

As you state, RAI. It is perfectly viable that Sunshine is a lawful good cleric and Sunsman Kettle chaotic good. Or even Lawful evil and serving the church because he enjoys the authority it grants him. In both those cases Sunshine would receive a -2 and get a watered down version of Mr Kettle.

So in other words, your version of Leadership is "take a feat to get NPC allies who don't agree with how the party does things and don't do nearly as much as they are supposed to."

You know, I could just go to a campaign where the DM loves DMPCs and get a similar effect without burning a feat.

Saying you have no choice over who you get for taking leadership is like arguing for using a strict RAW version of antimagic field, or a RAW version of Invoke Magic that, despite it's only purpose being to let you cast a low level spell in an AMF, never specifically stating you can use the spell itself in an AMF.

Leadership is one of those RAI cases where you have to do it RAI or it's utterly stupid; I'd never pay for a feat to have a DMPC I can't control tagging along with me while being an opposed alignment and too weak to be useful because the DM gives it a bunch of NPC levels.

[Yora]

I see the benefits of Leadership.

But why make it a feat at all?
If I decide as a gm that the players should have positions in a greater organization or that they are making very good work creating one on their own, they don't need to take a feat for that.

[Saph]

In the same spirit, here are five reasons not to allow Leadership.

1. It's brokenly overpowered. This should be obvious enough that it doesn't need explaining.

2. It adds to the number of characters in play, slowing the game down, especially in combat. Maybe not a problem if you've got two people in the party, but in a standard 5 person party, if everyone has a cohort and followers combat will take hours.

3. It hinders roleplay. If one player is directing the actions of both a PC and an NPC, it's really hard for them to get into character and it breaks suspension of disbelief for everyone else ("wait, which person were you when you said that?")

4. If the DM runs the cohort (so as to avoid the problem in number 3) then this adds to the DM's workload and puts him in the annoying position of running both sides of a combat at once when the party fights monsters.

5. Finally, Leadership is a mechanical ability that gives you something that really shouldn't be determined by game mechanics. The number of allies a PC has should be decided through roleplay and in-character actions. If you want allies, you go talk to people and get some. You shouldn't need a feat for it.

I've never allowed Leadership in my games, and honestly don't see a good reason to.

- Saph

[vampire2948]

I see the benefits of Leadership.

But why make it a feat at all?
If I decide as a gm that the players should have positions in a greater organization or that they are making very good work creating one on their own, they don't need to take a feat for that.

It is only fair that a player should lose something to gain something.

If the DM wants to give them that for free, that is his/her choice. If the player chooses that they want something, it is only fair that they give something up. In this case, a 6th level or higher feat slot.

EDIT -- The ninjas! They're everywhere Especially above me.

[sofawall]

Some are also below.

[Myshlaevsky]

EDIT -- The ninjas! They're everywhere Especially above me.

Not quite.

[PId6]

If the player chooses that they want something, it is only fair that they give something up. In this case, a 6th level or higher feat slot.

Only in this case, they're giving up a 6th level feat slot in exchange for a 17th level character.

[Frosty]

In the same spirit, here are five reasons not to allow Leadership.

1. It's brokenly overpowered. This should be obvious enough that it doesn't need explaining.

2. It adds to the number of characters in play, slowing the game down, especially in combat. Maybe not a problem if you've got two people in the party, but in a standard 5 person party, if everyone has a cohort and followers combat will take hours.

3. It hinders roleplay. If one player is directing the actions of both a PC and an NPC, it's really hard for them to get into character and it breaks suspension of disbelief for everyone else ("wait, which person were you when you said that?")

4. If the DM runs the cohort (so as to avoid the problem in number 3) then this adds to the DM's workload and puts him in the annoying position of running both sides of a combat at once when the party fights monsters.

5. Finally, Leadership is a mechanical ability that gives you something that really shouldn't be determined by game mechanics. The number of allies a PC has should be decided through roleplay and in-character actions. If you want allies, you go talk to people and get some. You shouldn't need a feat for it.

I've never allowed Leadership in my games, and honestly don't see a good reason to.

- Saph

I allow leadership for a Mount that can survive and keep up with the Rider.

[Mando Knight]

As you state, RAI. It is perfectly viable that Sunshine is a lawful good cleric and Sunsman Kettle chaotic good. Or even Lawful evil and serving the church because he enjoys the authority it grants him. In both those cases Sunshine would receive a -2 and get a watered down version of Mr Kettle.

Actually, Sunsman couldn't be LE or CG if Sister Sunshine is LG.

From the SRD:

The cohort’s alignment may not be opposed to the leader’s alignment on either the law-vs-chaos or good-vs-evil axis, and the leader takes a Leadership penalty if he recruits a cohort of an alignment different from his own.

[Darcand]

Actually, Sunsman couldn't be LE or CG if Sister Sunshine is LG.

From the SRD:

right you are sir, I forgot that line when I was replying

[Deepblue706]

Leadership is for chumps. Just use your money to get hirelings.

Then, pretend like you're NOT going to make them follow you into deathtraps. You might have to fork up a lot of dough to get them coming along, but you probably won't have to afford them much in wages if they end up dead soon anyhow.

[The Mentalist]

Then once they die you pocket their cash....

I did this in a game once. The DM tried to say he had 7cp on him when I had paid him 100gp as we entered the dungeon. He said he had a magical money pouch that teleported the cash... Big mistake. We sold the pouch for 1000 gold and called it a day.

[Darcand]

So in other words, your version of Leadership is "take a feat to get NPC allies who don't agree with how the party does things and don't do nearly as much as they are supposed to."

You know, I could just go to a campaign where the DM loves DMPCs and get a similar effect without burning a feat.

Saying you have no choice over who you get for taking leadership is like arguing for using a strict RAW version of antimagic field, or a RAW version of Invoke Magic that, despite it's only purpose being to let you cast a low level spell in an AMF, never specifically stating you can use the spell itself in an AMF.

Leadership is one of those RAI cases where you have to do it RAI or it's utterly stupid; I'd never pay for a feat to have a DMPC I can't control tagging along with me while being an opposed alignment and too weak to be useful because the DM gives it a bunch of NPC levels.

I'm sorry, when I saw RAI I assumed it meant Rules As Interperted, not Rules As Intended. Mostly because that is exactly how Leadership was intended to work. It was designed to give you a lower level sidekick, whom you have some degree of authority over, but that also expresses different views and even outright disobeys at times. While they aren't as handy in a fight as you are, they can hold their own against the typical thug and do sometimes come with a useful skill set.

In short, Leadership was designed to give you Robin, not a second Batman.

[Milskidasith]

That's what it's meant to be, yes. Giving a person who is of an alignment opposed to yours and then penalizing the PC who took the feat because you gave them somebody who wouldn't agree with them is a pretty bad way for the DM to do things. It's also pretty terrible if you are giving them cohorts with NPC levels; I don't *want* to take the feat if you are going to give me a True Neutral character who disagrees with what I say and is about as useful in combat as a Summon Monster I, is terribly unoptimized, and who I have to actually quest to protect.

Your version of the feat essentially involves giving players an escort mission NPC who, despite being under their leadership, they can't command.

[Myrmex]

In the same spirit, here are five reasons not to allow Leadership.

1. It's brokenly overpowered. This should be obvious enough that it doesn't need explaining.

2. It adds to the number of characters in play, slowing the game down, especially in combat. Maybe not a problem if you've got two people in the party, but in a standard 5 person party, if everyone has a cohort and followers combat will take hours.

3. It hinders roleplay. If one player is directing the actions of both a PC and an NPC, it's really hard for them to get into character and it breaks suspension of disbelief for everyone else ("wait, which person were you when you said that?")

4. If the DM runs the cohort (so as to avoid the problem in number 3) then this adds to the DM's workload and puts him in the annoying position of running both sides of a combat at once when the party fights monsters.

5. Finally, Leadership is a mechanical ability that gives you something that really shouldn't be determined by game mechanics. The number of allies a PC has should be decided through roleplay and in-character actions. If you want allies, you go talk to people and get some. You shouldn't need a feat for it.

I've never allowed Leadership in my games, and honestly don't see a good reason to.

- Saph

Saph, why are you always right?

[Eldariel]

I allow leadership for a Mount that can survive and keep up with the Rider.

For that, I use the Wild Cohort-feat, or if a player wants something more akin to Paladin's mount, I'm going to use a homebrewed feat named "Mount" that gets you a mount.

[Steward]

In short, Leadership was designed to give you Robin, not a second Batman.

So your Leadership feat grants you a permanent Magic Mouth that announces things that you noticed 6 rounds ago? "Laddering liches, Roy! It's Xykon!" "Our only chance is to use the PC-lube, old chum!"

Then, pretend like you're NOT going to make them follow you into deathtraps. You might have to fork up a lot of dough to get them coming along, but you probably won't have to afford them much in wages if they end up dead soon anyhow.

A good DM would only let you do that once per town.

[Yukitsu]

I use leadership to fill in missing niches that no one wants to play (Healers, trap monkeys, whatever we're missing.) I also use it when we're short players, and we don't want the DM to drop the CRs, or the DM won't reduce the CRs.

[Darcand]

That's what it's meant to be, yes. Giving a person who is of an alignment opposed to yours and then penalizing the PC who took the feat because you gave them somebody who wouldn't agree with them is a pretty bad way for the DM to do things. It's also pretty terrible if you are giving them cohorts with NPC levels; I don't *want* to take the feat if you are going to give me a True Neutral character who disagrees with what I say and is about as useful in combat as a Summon Monster I, is terribly unoptimized, and who I have to actually quest to protect.

Your version of the feat essentially involves giving players an escort mission NPC who, despite being under their leadership, they can't command.

A fourth level warrior is going to be able to hold his ground in a typical sixth level encounter (saaaay eight second level warriors, four second level fighters, or one sixth level cleric) as long as he is fighting as part of the group.

A fourth level noble or expert brings less combat to the table, but he makes up for it with useful skill sets that PCs often don't have enough free points to be able to indulge in.

An adept isn't as combat orientated as a warrior, or as skilly as the other two, but still can contribute buffs, debuffs, heals, and battlefield control.

As far as not having any control over the exact details of your Cohort, that is something to discuss with your DM before taking the feat. Leadership is not different then many prestidge classes in that they require some discussion of how, why, and what effect does this have on the campaign.

Lastly, again, if you want absolute control of your cohort, and him to be as optimised as possible then what you really want to play a second character. Save the feat and ask your DM to let you.

[Milskidasith]

A fourth level warrior is going to get save or suck'd in a level 6 encounter and die. It doesn't bring much to the table at all.

[Darcand]

A fourth level warrior is going to get save or suck'd in a level 6 encounter and die. It doesn't bring much to the table at all.

He saved your sixth level fighter from getting saved or sucked in that encounter.

[Frosty]

A 6th level fighter ought to get a Wizard as a cohort. Level4 Wizard Cohort casts Grease on your opponent. opponent is now flat-footed and/or prone. Power Attack away!

[Milskidasith]

He saved your sixth level fighter from getting saved or sucked in that encounter.

So the only value of the cohort is his ability to be targeted by abilities instead of another party member? Hirelings do that and don't require a feat.

[Sanguine]

So the only value of the cohort is his ability to be targeted by abilities instead of another party member? Hirelings do that and don't require a feat.

Plus if they die you can get your money back.

[tyckspoon]

Saying you have no choice over who you get for taking leadership is like arguing for using a strict RAW version of antimagic field, or a RAW version of Invoke Magic that, despite it's only purpose being to let you cast a low level spell in an AMF, never specifically stating you can use the spell itself in an AMF.

Doesn't have to say you can use it in AMF if you're actually running RAW AMF, because AMF has nothing to say about casting spells. It only cares whether or not the effects of the spells can work in the AMF, and Invoke Magic does specifically function in AMF (really, its effect is to let your *next* spell's effect work in the AMF, but same thing.)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

5. Finally, Leadership is a mechanical ability that gives you something that really shouldn't be determined by game mechanics. The number of allies a PC has should be decided through roleplay and in-character actions. If you want allies, you go talk to people and get some. You shouldn't need a feat for it.

I would point out that having a standardized system for followers can be a good thing. Okay, Joan of Arc wants to get followers. How many can she get? How should she earn them? What's the Diplomacy DC--or is there a Diplomacy DC? If you have no mechanics for it, it's left up to the DM's call, which could be an issue if the DM can't decide how to rule. If you have a mechanic for it, he can reference the table for determining the number of followers and then RP can grab followers up to that amount without requiring further Diplomacizing and such.

Also, I'd point out that Leadership is really just an extension of the men-at-arms/acolytes/followers/etc. rules in 1e and 2e. Both of those editions favored heavily the "screw RP rules, just talk it out" side of things, yet they had concrete rules for gaining followers, building a stronghold, and so forth. My group used those rules with no more than minor problems for years; having mechanics for followers isn't inherently a bad thing.