[3.5] Leadership...huh...what is it good for?

[jiriku]

I've seen many posters knock the Leadership feat as overpowered/broken/just a bad idea. I'm a little confused about this attitude.

I have played in games where DMs who didn't want extra work told me to stat up my own cohort and followers and manage them myself when I took leadership. Hey, I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, so I built optimized characters, ran my cohort as a second PC, and doubled the total power under my control. This was definitely broken.

But it wasn't RAW.

RAW instructs the DM to design the cohort and followers, and to run them as NPCs. A player doesn't get to choose what classes his cohort takes or what feats it chooses or where it places its skill or ability points, and the DM is the arbiter of what a cohort will or will not do.

Now, I've run games in which my players took leadership at my encouragement. I built their cohorts and defined what sort of followers were available. I ran the cohorts as NPCs, per RAW. My players were very pleased with the value of their feat slot, but the cohorts never overshadowed their masters and I never allowed them to make the other players who hadn't taken leadership feel insignificant.

So for those of you who think the feat has issues, what's your perspective?

[Eldariel]

You get to choose what kind of a cohort you attract, so yes, you in effect get to choose what you get. Relevant passage:

"A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment."

[Godskook]

RAW instructs the DM to design the cohort and followers, and to run them as NPCs. A player doesn't get to choose what classes his cohort takes or what feats it chooses or where it places its skill or ability points, and the DM is the arbiter of what a cohort will or will not do.

Link please?

[SparkMandriller]

A feat which lets you get a cohort that may or may not be good, depending on how your DM feels, and may or may not be helpful, depending on how your DM feels, doesn't really sound like too much of a good idea to me.

[Zaydos]

I like the idea of PCs gaining cohorts but I want them to put RP work into it. For that reason I normally don't allow Leadership. If I did I'd probably let the PCs stat out the cohorts themselves, but that's because they're fairly new and so far fail at optimization without having me design their characters or help extensively. Mostly it's the RP factor, although to a point I think a decently made Lv -2 character should be a quite strong investment for a feat. I've never actually had a player who used it (I used it once, they let me build the character too but I was new and it wasn't optimized and it still was very useful), though, so I can't really comment on power.

[Innis Cabal]

You get to choose what kind of a cohort you attract, so yes, you in effect get to choose what you get. Relevant passage:

"A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment."

You don't get to choose. You can try to attract them. You can pick what you try to get. Dosn't mean your going to get it. Can is a mighty word.

There is also the clause that the DM can just say NO. And thats RAW

[oxybe]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#leadership

relevant passage:

Cohort Level

The character can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of a character’s Leadership score, he can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than himself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level. A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment. 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.

[Ehra]

You get to choose what kind of a cohort you attract, so yes, you in effect get to choose what you get. Relevant passage:

"A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment."

I think the key word in that quote is "can try."

A feat which lets you get a cohort that may or may not be good, depending on how your DM feels, and may or may not be helpful, depending on how your DM feels, doesn't really sound like too much of a good idea to me.

How is that different from pretty much everything else in DnD?

[Godskook]

There is also the clause that the DM can just say NO. And thats RAW

Where is it? I've yet to find any clauses that actually say anything like 'the DM stats up the cohort' or 'DM may nix player's desired cohort choice'. Sure, there's rule 0, but that applies to everything.

[oxybe]

oddly enough the player can also say no to the DM's suggested cohort.

"sorry but Ted the Bold refuses John Cohortington's services."

i would imagine the player have the ability to choose who he hangs out with, right?

[SparkMandriller]

How is that different from pretty much everything else in DnD?

Every other feat you at least know what you're getting. If the DM decides everything about your cohort, you don't. Maybe it'll be good, maybe it'll be worthless! Like a gameshow or somethin'. :/

[Eldariel]

There is also the clause that the DM can just say NO. And thats RAW

It's always RAW; doesn't matter whether it's stated or not. It's frankly completely trivial to every question at hands. Of course DM can ban or control anything, but what does that tell about any balance questions or anything else? It's just not something to consider here.


And the related issues of players not wanting DM's cohorts and DM not giving players the cohorts they want...well, that just highlights how ridiculous a feat Leadership is. Leadership is something that is a result of your roleplay and Charisma, not a friggin' feat.

[PinkysBrain]

I've seen many posters knock the Leadership feat as overpowered/broken/just a bad idea. I'm a little confused about this attitude.

The problem with leadership is that regardless of how poor your cohort is constructed it's still in no proportion to a feat slot ... putting it in the PHB as if it was a normal feat option was a stupid idea. It's like putting artifacts in the PHB and saying that they will cost 1 gp to buy if the DM makes them available in the campaign.

[AzazelSephiroth]

My take on the Leadership feat, and many of my friends share this opinion, is that it can be used to break a game. Just like allowing my players to play a wizard can allow them to kill everything with 100 miles of there golem/dominated/undead army.
The feat is both an expression of your character's notoriety and his willingness to actually lead people. Many of my characters have striven for nobility or land as a reward for quests well done and yet I rarely took leadership because I rarely wanted to deal with the hassel of having an "army" tagging along. If I becam Lord So and So, I generally protected my lands and my serfs, peasants or whatever never really came into game.
If a character takes leadership it means they have decided to take on that responsibility and are putting the effort forth in commanding and providing for his X number of followers and his super general aka Mr/Mrs Cohort. I have never found a DM who would completely discount my desire for a paticular Cohort and likewise I have never found a Player who had to have complete control over their followers. On the other note however, there is a strong RP element as well for the PC cannot realisticly take leadership with out some fame and prestige (hence the 6th level requirement.)
I know this was a long response for my simple answer but I like the idea of the Leadership feat. I believe it has the potential to reward good RPers and can even help small party groups. On the other hand I also recognize that according to RAW the DM does control all said NPCs and so some of my choices may get vetoed. Give and take in any game. If the DM lets me have a Redeemed Succubus Paladin who dual-weilds flaming holy swords... well they asked for it and I certainly hope my fellow players are doing equaly amazing feats.
Can be very cool and useful, potential for abuse as with alot of feats RAW and not.

[Starbuck_II]

The feat is both an expression of your character's notoriety and his willingness to actually lead people. Many of my characters have striven for nobility or land as a reward for quests well done and yet I rarely took leadership because I rarely wanted to deal with the hassel of having an "army" tagging along.

Then don't bring the followers. Just the Cohort.
I know I never use the follower part.

[taltamir]

I like the idea of PCs gaining cohorts but I want them to put RP work into it. For that reason I normally don't allow Leadership. If I did I'd probably let the PCs stat out the cohorts themselves, but that's because they're fairly new and so far fail at optimization without having me design their characters or help extensively. Mostly it's the RP factor, although to a point I think a decently made Lv -2 character should be a quite strong investment for a feat. I've never actually had a player who used it (I used it once, they let me build the character too but I was new and it wasn't optimized and it still was very useful), though, so I can't really comment on power.

I agree you should get cohorts in game... why a feat? what you can NOT hire someone without a feat? you cannot get friends without a feat? you can just get hundreds of followers with nothing but a feat? that feat is just retarded.

If your PC wants to get some friends / cohorts, well, go get some... make a quest out of it. Start a business, a crime organization, take over a kingdom, get a military rank... do SOMETHING... don't just take a feat at level up.

[Akal Saris]

I believe the 3.0 DMG also had different instructions on Leadership that were omitted in 3.5 - followers could only be experts, commoners, or warriors, and there might have been something about who creates the cohort as well.

[jiriku]

I agree you should get cohorts in game... why a feat? what you can NOT hire someone without a feat? you cannot get friends without a feat? you can just get hundreds of followers with nothing but a feat? that feat is just retarded.

If your PC wants to get some friends / cohorts, well, go get some... make a quest out of it. Start a business, a crime organization, take over a kingdom, get a military rank... do SOMETHING... don't just take a feat at level up.

[scholarly lecture mode]
I may be showing my age here, but remember in 1st edition, followers were a CLASS FEATURE that all classes received between 9th-11th level. Cohorts weren't a class feature, but the DMG contained complex rules describing fixed amounts of WBL you HAD to offer an NPC before you could entice them to become your cohort.

Thus, having a castle garrison/wizard's cabal/thieves' guild/religious following was a standard part of your class's power and a reward for leveling. Of course, some players had no interest in managing a group of NPCs and passed on the opportunity. They received nothing in return for their sacrifice, and their characters were permanently less powerful than those who accepted their followers.

From one perspective, 3rd edition is a bold step forward. You now receive your cohort (and eventually your followers) beginning at 6th level (thus getting players the good sooner, since not all campaigns run much past 11th level), and if you choose not to acquire followers...you get A FEAT in return to spend on whatever you wish.

So from this perspective, the Leadership feat is not an attempt to create a feat out of something that should be pure RP. It is an attempt at taking something that every class gets by default and create an alternate class feature (feat slot) so that people who don't want followers can get something else of value instead.

And if Leadership > feat slot in your mind, remember where 3rd edition was coming from - feats were the big new thing that turned class features into modular building blocks you could mix and match to your taste (such as track and item creation, which were class features in previous editions). Balance issues arose because the designers made mistakes in judging the relative value of class features.
[/scholarly lecture mode]

So the objections to Leadership I'm getting so far is that it unfairly limits you (you should be able to get as many followers as your RP will allow) and that it gives too much power to the DM (who may give your something good or something not so good).

Is that about it?

Edit: It's off-topic, but Starbuck, GITP opened my eyes to the power of first-level followers! I take mine with me wherever I go, and I sleep *well* at night knowing that I have 2-3 1st level experts with +10 Spot checks to watch over me while I sleep. Plus, as a red wizard, I appreciate the spell levels my apprentices give me during circle magic, and I can also call on a master blacksmith, alchemist, forger, animal handler, etc, etc, etc, all with a +10 or better bonus to their primary skill.

[BobVosh]

1st/2ed were hilarious in the way it was written. The second you ding hundred or so people came from...somewhere. And then build you a stronghold. Always just found that weird.

As for leadership: it can be amazingly powerful. Or worthless. Depends on how it is done. Just a poorly thought out feature. Humorously enough in one of my games we all have leadership to pilot our fleet. 9 ships and growing stronger.

[RagnaroksChosen]

1st/2ed were hilarious in the way it was written. The second you ding hundred or so people came from...somewhere. And then build you a stronghold. Always just found that weird.

As for leadership: it can be amazingly powerful. Or worthless. Depends on how it is done. Just a poorly thought out feature. Humorously enough in one of my games we all have leadership to pilot our fleet. 9 ships and growing stronger.

I believe but I'm not sure you had to have some one train you or had some amount of down time to acquire the new level.
Also they didn't really tumble out of no where. it stated that they would trickle in.

I love leadership but alot of my players don't use it because they don't like to micro manage.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The real abuse in Leadership is when all your Followers are 1st and 2nd level Sorcerers, who all use Circle Magic and Cooperative Magic to boost your Spell DC's into the stratosphere. Well, that and expending spell slots to mitigate the spellcraft DC on epic spells...

[OracleofWuffing]

The real abuse in Leadership is when all your Followers are 1st and 2nd level Sorcerers, who all use Circle Magic and Cooperative Magic to boost your Spell DC's into the stratosphere. Well, that and expending spell slots to mitigate the spellcraft DC on epic spells...

Don't forget when your cohort reaches level 6 and takes leadership to augment these shenanigans before the DM brings on the banhammer twenty years back. 'Sup dawg, I heard you like something or other so I did stuff.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Don't forget when your cohort reaches level 6 and takes leadership to augment these shenanigans before the DM brings on the banhammer twenty years back. 'Sup dawg, I heard you like something or other so I did stuff.

"Sup dawg, I heard you like Followers. So when yer Cohort level 6, we put Leadership on your Leadership so your Followers can have Followers"

Yea... tiered systems are historically accurate, but can lead to army-level sized minion sheets.

But then what you do with all those minions is the telling point. Increasing the DC of your spells to over 100 with a single feat? That's pretty darn fun.

[Kelpstrand]

But it's okay, because then your DM breaks out the evil Hammer of Justice, and pits you against a "CR 15" Encounter of a 22HD Black Dragon with Leadership and Epic Leadership, with an Epic Sorcerer as his Cohort.

Also, 400 1st level Kobold Sorcerers to mitigate DC. And to magic missile spam you if you ever enter his lair. (And then all his Cohorts and Cohorts Cohorts and Followers over level 6 all take Leadership.)

[Ravens_cry]

Hey, it could be fun, if you use a fantasy war games system for the large scale battle parts. If all the players don't mind the game going that way it could get pretty epic.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But it's okay, because then your DM breaks out the evil Hammer of Justice, and pits you against a "CR 15" Encounter of a 22HD Black Dragon with Leadership and Epic Leadership, with an Epic Sorcerer as his Cohort.

Also, 400 1st level Kobold Sorcerers to mitigate DC. And to magic missile spam you if you ever enter his lair. (And then all his Cohorts and Cohorts Cohorts and Followers over level 6 all take Leadership.)

A simple Shield spell negates all the Magic Missile spam...
the dragon, on the other hand, doesn't need leadership or epic leadership, because he's an NPC, an the 'encounter' can have whatever the GM would like to have.

Also, all his forces would avail him naught, with your Disintegrate Fort Save DC 100+...

[Indon]

Absolutely nothin'?*

You know, I disagree. I think Leadership makes for a good guideline for establishing a band of followers (with a trusty lieutenant). If a DM wants to run followers/cohorts with pure RP, Leadership still provides a fairly good guideline as to how many followers someone should be able to gather at any given level (provided the assumption that prestige increases with level, and so on).

And in and of itself, it's frankly no more exploitable than spellcasting in general. If you could gain the Polymorph spell as an SLA for a feat, it'd be comparable to Leadership, and that's just one of the potent spells in the game.

So if you're playing a game in which Polymorph is cast seriously, why not Leadership?

*-Say it again now!

[Melamoto]

A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment.

The way it works is that everything is chosen by the DM, but you can make preferences. These preferences also only apply to race, class, and alignment, not feats, skills, or items. You can give the Cohort equipment, but that's coming out of your WBL; and you can help him make his choice of build, but only help.

So, for example, you could say you wanted a specific type of creature, an alignment, and what archetype they were. But the DM would still only have to base if on those guidelines. A Lawful Good Elven Paladin request could still turn out as a Neutral Good Half-Elf Fighter.

[Starbuck_II]

The way it works is that everything is chosen by the DM, but you can make preferences. These preferences also only apply to race, class, and alignment, not feats, skills, or items. You can give the Cohort equipment, but that's coming out of your WBL; and you can help him make his choice of build, but only help.

I disagree on WPL. NPCs get their own wealth (though usually 1/3rd the PCs), and Cohort should have their own stuff. But I do think there is nothing wrong with giving some of your wealth to the Cohort in addition.

[Lamech]

A simple Shield spell negates all the Magic Missile spam...
the dragon, on the other hand, doesn't need leadership or epic leadership, because he's an NPC, an the 'encounter' can have whatever the GM would like to have.

Also, all his forces would avail him naught, with your Disintegrate Fort Save DC 100+...

But things that the dragon adds with his own power don't count for CR. Like cohort cause he payed a feat.