[3.5] Do you use the Leadership feat?

[ken-do-nim]

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]

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]

I use it every time we only have three players at the table.

[Noneoyabizzness]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I allow leadership, but only if the cohort and followers remain largely off-screen.

[WaterTengu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ...

[Tacoma]

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]

If he allowed that sort of nonsense in the first place, it shouldn't be too hard to convince him.

[Telonius]

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.

[Superglucose]

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]

So basically, you let them use a feat slot to gain no benefit. Ho yay.

[Shpadoinkle]

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]

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]

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]

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.