Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Is there anyone who does not Ban Leadership


Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew

1 to 50 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I personally do not ban leadership, because it expands on gaming options of Mass combat (Invading another country), building a church or guild, constructing your own city). Although I would like to hear from other people to see if I am alone.


I lot of people don't ban it, but many do modify it. That has been the consensus for many of the threads on this topic anyway. I personally allow the player to build and run the cohort, but they don't get followers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't ban it. In fact, everyone gets it, no feat needed. Actually taking the feat nets you a +2 to your leadership score. On the other hand, I don't allow automatic recruitment. Gaining followers is a roleplaying reward, and a cohort has to be actively, and specifically, sought out.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I ban it for most of my games. But I give it to players at level 1 when playing a mass combat game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
8 Red Wizards wrote:
I personally do not ban leadership, because it expands on gaming options of Mass combat (Invading another country), building a church or guild, constructing your own city). Although I would like to hear from other people to see if I am alone.

I've never banned leadership. In fact, I've recommended it to some players.


I see so many people talk about how they banned leadership in there games I just wanted to see who lets leadership go in there game.


Ive used leadership before, it was pretty broken, even though the DM said I could use a character with NPC levels for cohort.

Try this feat

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/rite-publishing/101-feats/gen eral-feats/allied-cohort

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Leadership is only broken if your GM isn't good enough to handle it, I can understand it being "banned" for inexperienced GMs but anyone worth their salt at it will allow it.

Andoran

I don't ban it. In the past I have run a lot of games with smaller than average parties (2 or 3 players). A cohort can help fill some party gaps, to allow them to take on higher level challenges. However, unless they have established some sort of home base capable of containing them, I do not allow the followers.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
The Eel wrote:
I don't ban it. In fact, everyone gets it, no feat needed. Actually taking the feat nets you a +2 to your leadership score. On the other hand, I don't allow automatic recruitment. Gaining followers is a roleplaying reward, and a cohort has to be actively, and specifically, sought out.

This.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't ban it. If the players want the cohort (and it's complications) they can have one. In the 3.5 game I run, there are 5 cohorts, an animal companion, and a shadow companion on top of 6 PCs.


I'm an old-skool guy; back in 1e it was expected that you'd pick up followers and hirelings, and fighters even got a personal army as a class feature. In 3.X, it even provides a minor mechanical use for Charisma, a stat that most non-paladins/oracles/bards/sorcerers dump as low as possible. So I'm all about the Leadership feat.


I was very irritated in a game where my GM let me take Leadership but then didn't actually let me get any cohorts or followers. Instead he reckoned he had npcs respond to me differently so that I could 'lead'. This could have been a creative role-playing benefit but didn't actually work out that way and just left me feeling cheated of a precious feat.


It has no business being a feat, either make it a free bonus for everyone in the party or ditch it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
8 Red Wizards wrote:
I personally do not ban leadership, because it expands on gaming options of Mass combat (Invading another country), building a church or guild, constructing your own city). Although I would like to hear from other people to see if I am alone.

I don't ban it, it's useful if you need a cadre of men to 'mind the fort' while you are off adventuring.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I do not ban it. As a GM, I will either offer up an opportunity for an NPC to become a persons cohort or have the character active look for one. In our groups we have always said that the PC is in charge of running the cohort but, the GM still controls their personality meaning that you as a player cannot order your cohort to do stuff he/she would never do.

A couple of examples:

Spoiler:
In the Kingmaker game I was running, the cavalier wanted to take leadership from the beginning. He wound up with Akiros, one of the Stag Lords minions who wound up switching sides. He was a perfect choice in game while not being the most optimized cohort he could be. Tot he group it felt like a natural progression. Now, Akiros leads a small contigent of men that are the followers. They were used to secure Varnhold while the group investigated the lich's tomb

In another game I played in, my character did something similar where a fighter we had saved in a dungeon wanted to assist us. Since he was hanging around us anyway and I was the leader of the group, I decided to take leadership and make him my cohort. Funny thing in that game was that my cohort, a straight fighter, was typically more effective than my magus in combat. It is a running joke in that game that my cohort is going to take over the group.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't ban it.

I may give it out as an RP award.

I do insist on making the followers though. I'll work with the player, but the only time I've had it abused was when I had someone make their own follower and min/max the system six ways from Sunday to build a glass cannon they covered in combat.

I've had several people get it over the years. Never had any trouble with it (as long as I make the NPCs).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I would say I ban leadership based on the campaign. If it makes sense for PCs to take time out to build up and maintain the kind of connections that lead to the Leadership brood, they can have it. If, for example, you're going cross-continent at a pace of several hundred miles in a week, not stopping anywhere long enough to settle down, and moving too fast to maintain a large group of people? Probably not appropriate.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
mdt wrote:

I don't ban it.

I may give it out as an RP award.

*lightbulb*


I don't mind the feat. The only thing I don't like about it is the same gripe that I have with playing the game past level 6 - that it takes players too long to take their turn. I hate waiting on the cohort's action.

I only allow it for players that are really familiar with the rules, who I think can take both their characters' turns rapidly.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The GM for our current campaign doesn’t ban it; most of the party are members of the nobility and / or in leadership positions in local churches or the city watch, 3 of the 4 regular players (and 1 of 2 occasional players) have taken the leadership feat for their characters.

I will be GMing the next campaign and am not planning on banning leadership either, however I will be instituting a GM fiat on how many followers can be recruited from any given location. Cohorts will be available as soon as possible in the context of the story following the taking of the feat, followers may trickle in more slowly, especially when the group is in wilderness or rural areas.

Andoran

I allow it. Nobody's yet taken me up on it, though. :(

I probably wouldn't allow them to bring their folowers out adventuring with them, though. On the other hand, their cohort is, of course, welcome along.

I'd definitely expect them to roleplay out the whole recruiting thing, though. Unless there's a pre-existing NPC to fit, of course.


A good friend of mine and long time DM (longer than me) has always made it a policy to ban leadership because if you know how to abuse it, you can get some insanely large armies going.

My policy is to not allow leadership, for the same reason, exploitation of the feat. Instead what I usually do is if I feel it will help the story or party on a particular mission, I'll have a GM controlled NPC accompany them.

For example:

Player A & B are hired by a resistance group to raid an enemy prison and break out the kings son before the prince can be executed with the help of the Captain of the Guard and his three knights.

Upon breaking into the prison the players go off to rescue the prince while the Captain and is men split up to guard the entrance and clear a path for escape. Thus a castle that might normally have a hundred men, can now have a reasonable number due to the other guards "indirect assistance".

Other times (rarely) I've had an NPC accompany the players and actually enter combat as a method for building the characters relationship with that character, etc.

So in a sense you could say that in these cases I give all the players "leadership" they just have absolutely no control over it and dont get it all the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I do not out right ban it from my games, there are a number of things that make my players aware of before they take it. Followers are only gained if the party has a permanent base of operations: and they don't leave. They take care of the castle, or the fort, or the tower; they grow food, tend the fields, watch over the herds, maybe work a small mine. They do this for the PC they follow, and they will defend his keep to the best of their extent. They do not go dungeon delving or take the offensive. Ever.

Cohorts must be found and recruited; on occassion one may seek out the party to inquire about employment. I design the cohorts; I build them. They have NPC gear appropriate for their level (not the PCs, the cohort's level). Cohorts do not get a share of treasure, and receive XP equal to their PC. If the PC wants the cohort to have better gear, he has to either find it or buy it and then give it to them.

Once he does that, it isn't his stuff anymore: it belongs to the cohort. Abused cohorts can and do leave. Usually in the middle of night on their watch, with an F U note left for their PC.

On the other hand, well-treated cohorts may sing of the PCs praises. Some eventually graduated and move off on their own, replaced by different arrivals who seek to learn from a master. Some will be content to play second-fiddle to the PC to the end of the campaign and beyond.

Master Arminas

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Jorda75: It's also problematic in very large parties, regardless of GM skill. You might dial it back a little. I've been GMing for 20 years now and I don't allow it in some games.


I used to like Birhtright in 2e, still own Campaign Set, this is a little off the subject but I own Empire(aeg product), Miniatures Handbook, Heroes of Battle and Power of Faerun. Are there any books anyone recommends for mass combat rules, etc.

Sczarni

My GM never banned it. Usually he encourages it. However, only one player in the party is allowed to take it-- the reasoning being that in order to take Leadership, you have to be the leader of the group. Usually the guy that gets to take it is the one with the highest CHA bonus, or whoever's been acting as the leader of the group.

He has discouraged us from taking it in the Kingmaker campaign, since that campaign usually results in NPC's joining your group anyway. I like how recruiting followers works in that campaign, but one of our party seems to have made it his goal to recruit as many followers as possible simply to maximize how many character sheets the GM has to keep track of.


Leadership is the biggest gift you can give your GM, as it says "I want stories about acquiring, maintaining, and assisting my followers and the community around them."

It gives an easy well to draw from for threading long term campaign plotlines. It provides a ready source of spare NPCs with established ties for tourists to play, it proves the character has an investment in the area.

If someone asks to take Leadership, Ray, you say "YES!"

-Ben.


Two of my players have taken Leadership in our Kingmaker campaign. I believe they are planning a coup. I'm sure they will not tell me beforehand but I think I've spotted a number of positioning moves already.

Should be awesome,... and terrible. Depending on your tolerance of chaos.

I'm a big fan of chaos.

Qadira

I allow it with the following caveats:

- NPC classes only

- the GM controls the cohort's actions except during combat, when the PC is responsible, but the GM retains veto rights

- followers do not stay with the PC non-stop, but may be used to setup guilds, churches, mercenary groups, etc


I allow it. But the cohort and followers must all be npc classes, not the standard core.


Less experienced players as well as those who never bothered to read the rules tend to be not even aware of its existence.
In 3.x if I recall correctly it was only found in the DMG, so even those who knew the PHB well didn't know about it.

I'm pretty sure if I mentioned the fact that there is such a feat to the people I usually game with, they would probably be surprised.

I allow the feat however.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I ban it on the grounds that I don't think it should be a feat (in other words, a tax, because its crazy to not take Leadership in a game that allows it).

If a player wants a cohort or followers, I would allow that independent of the feat. Everyone just needs to be OK with it.


I allow it, but you have to take the whole thing (not just cherry pick out your cohort) and have to deal with the repurcussions of what to do with your massive tribe of followers eating all your money.


I disallowed it in the past but in current campaign it is allowed. No one taken it yet - the party is 5th level currently, but party bard seriously considers taking Leadership and selecting her Cleric lover as a cohort (I already said that it can be done). I already stated that cohort will be always two levels lower than the party (we don't use xp, characters' level goes up when I say it goes up).


I don't ban it, and neither does my DM. Problem is that he doesn't let me RP the cohort even if I build it myself from scratch.
I didn't agree with him on that being fair, but I cannot protest more than once.


We use it in our games, and it's been incredibly valuable in both Kingmaker and in Council of Thieves.

I encourage cohorts to be incredibly simple to play. Most of our cohorts are, and play moves along smoothly most of the time.


I guess it comes down to whether or not the current game is built to handle it. I remember being in a game back in D&D 3.0 where we were using the leadership rules where the GM had not actually thought about them. If I recall, most of the followers of the PC aren't cut out for adventuring and instead help maintain camp or do other menial tasks. Only the higher level ones make any real difference, and adding an extra monster was often enough to balance the encounters. Of course, I was a player at the time and not the GM, so I'm not entirely certain how much extra work it caused the GM at the time.


I don't ban it, but so far the only player I had take it was the player of a paladin in a 3.0 game who wanted it for a splat-book rule that allowed you to combine Leadership with the Paladin's Mount for something other than a horse. He wanted a griffon.


I'm shocked at the number people on this board who *DO* ban it. I've *never* played in a game where a DM/GM forbid people from taking it. I've also never seen it cause a problem.

Like was mentioned above, I remember when it was an automatic feature in previous editions. I much prefer it as a feat so I have the option if I want start managing people.


I do not ban Leadership but I apply the same common sense to the feat that I do most of the rest of the game. Just simply don't abuse the feat to some crazy extent.

If you think you are getting a Wizard who will no more than your "item creation monkey" don't bother. Thoe NPCs are people and although they follow the character they are not slaves or constructs. They have a mind of their own.

It's a sliding scale for me as a GM... The more you try and abuse the system the more I make it hurt from an RP perspective =)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
darth_borehd wrote:

I'm shocked at the number people on this board who *DO* ban it.

Why? Leadership is a problematic feat, especially if your table is large to begin with. Last thing I want to happen is a party of 6 turn into a party of 12 with 6 small armies attached to it. It's also a feat that's not only far up on the power scale compared with any other feat in the game, it's an avenue towards major player abuse, who tend to create either healbots or itembots from them.

The game was designed to be customisable. So yes, sometimes your favorite feat, your favorite class, or your favorite weapon will be banned by DM's discretion.


ElizLestrad wrote:
A good friend of mine and long time DM (longer than me) has always made it a policy to ban leadership because if you know how to abuse it, you can get some insanely large armies going.

Yeah, but so what? I mean, large armies aren't game-breaking. They're not even relevant, given the way the core rules actually work. A single planar binding can call a critter with high enough DR that it could obliterate an army of any size with total impunity, and without taking a scratch.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I ban it in my home games because there's no need for it. If a player wants followers, or an army, he jumps through the roleplaying hoops and he can get them if the campaign can accomodate it. They'll get what they get based on what they look for, and how they do so.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jorda75 wrote:
Leadership is only broken if your GM isn't good enough to handle it, I can understand it being "banned" for inexperienced GMs but anyone worth their salt at it will allow it.

I'm very careful not to make generalizations like this, because they are always wrong.

If you want to be a leader, then role play it.
Mechanics that superimpose or replace role playing have no business in my (not worth my salt & inexperienced) games.

Speaking of salt, want some for the toes?


LazarX wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:

I'm shocked at the number people on this board who *DO* ban it.

Why? Leadership is a problematic feat, especially if your table is large to begin with. Last thing I want to happen is a party of 6 turn into a party of 12 with 6 small armies attached to it. It's also a feat that's not only far up on the power scale compared with any other feat in the game, it's an avenue towards major player abuse, who tend to create either healbots or itembots from them.

Never seen more than 1 or 2 people take it. Most players just don't want to be bothered with having to manage and maintain a NPC. The min/maxers pass it up in favor of better feats for their particular builds.

Itembot? Who's to say the NPC they get will have the necessary feats?

By healbot, you mean a cleric? I think that's what clerics do. If PCs are ordering the cleric to rush into danger all the time it will likely start to piss the NPC off.

Bottom line is that whatever benefit you get from a cohort is offset by having to manage them, outfit them, feed them, worrying if they will do something stupid, trying to stop them from getting killed/dominated, rescuing them, having to put up with a possibly annoying personality (abrasive, whiny, etc), and worst of all: having a witness when they do something illegal.


Azmyth wrote:
I'm very careful not to make generalizations like this, because they are always wrong.

I can't help but point out this sentence... surely it should read "because they are generally wrong", right? :D

Sorry, I couldn't resist. You make good points, though.

Shadow Lodge

No, HIS generalization was absolutely right, it was the other guys generalization that was wrong. Obviously, his generalization about the other generalization doesn't fall into the same category.

;)


LazarX wrote:
I ban it in my home games because there's no need for it. If a player wants followers, or an army, he jumps through the roleplaying hoops and he can get them if the campaign can accomodate it. They'll get what they get based on what they look for, and how they do so.

+1

I don't ban it. I just don't even notice or care about it. It was optional in 3.5, and is generally unnecessary within the old RPG style our group plays.

I don't think a single one of my players even cares about it.


TOZ wrote:

No, HIS generalization was absolutely right, it was the other guys generalization that was wrong. Obviously, his generalization about the other generalization doesn't fall into the same category.

;)

Mind. Blown.

1 to 50 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew / Is there anyone who does not Ban Leadership All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.