Do non-permanent charisma bonuses apply to a character's leadership score? The DMG seems to be vague on this point, so it looks like a matter of DM discretion.
I don't mind that a headband of intellect can qualify a character for Combat Expertise because I can rationalize the required 13 Int as a certain quickness of thought rather than required knowledge, but Leadership is different because you can't just 'turn off' the benefits of the feat if your cloak of charisma is supressed or destroyed.
On the other hand, if only permanent charisma bonuses apply, it makes Leadership pretty worthless for everyone except bards, paladins and sorcerers. And downright painful at epic levels (which is how this whole issue came up for me), even for those charisma-based classes.
TS
Do non-permanent charisma bonuses apply to a character's leadership score? The DMG seems to be vague on this point, so it looks like a matter of DM discretion.
I don't mind that a headband of intellect can qualify a character for Combat Expertise because I can rationalize the required 13 Int as a certain quickness of thought rather than required knowledge, but Leadership is different because you can't just 'turn off' the benefits of the feat if your cloak of charisma is supressed or destroyed.
Good point. It does appear ridiculous that a PC removes his cloak and suddenly his cohort is having second thoughts about his recent decision of following the guy. I'd rule (from now on ;) ) that only their real (permanent) charisma applies for cohorts and followers.
On the other hand, if only permanent charisma bonuses apply, it makes Leadership pretty worthless for everyone except bards, paladins and sorcerers. And downright painful at epic levels (which is how this whole issue came up for me), even for those charisma-based classes.
Why worthless? The table for cohorts and followers gives you the starting level for the cohort, but they can raise in levels up to the PC's level -1. The charisma score or, more appropriately, the leadership score has no bearing on this. So it's not really that painful, it might come 6 or 7 levels behind, but by virtue of the system it catches up pretty fast to that PC level -1 limit.
Now, followers will come and leave if you gain or lose leadership, but I don't think I'll qualify that as painful ;)
I strongly disagree. Anyone who has ever been out drinking in a meat-market night club knows what happens when the beer goggles of Charisma are removed. Lots of second-thoughts about the person you had just been following.
Temporary Charisma bonuses should most definitely apply, and their benefits should disappear when when they cease to apply.
Rez
I'd suggest a slightly more stringent approach: longterm, nonpermanent bonuses should be applicable -- a cloak of charisma, for example. Unless your cohort happens to also be your roommate you won't be dealing with them before you've gotten fully dressed. Or, at least, we tend to assume that you're running that kind of game unless stated otherwise.
Truly temporary bonuses from spells such as Eagle's Splendor, on the other hand, I wouldn't allow simply because it's going to take a truly epic series of skill checks and roleplaying to convince someone to become your cohort before the duration of the spell is up.
Temporary Charisma bonuses should most definitely apply, and their benefits should disappear when when they cease to apply.
But, in D&D, the benefit will not disappear. Just going by the rules, not roleplaying anything: you take the feat and you get a cohort according to your leadership score. He won't go away if your leadership score decreases, it's not like he suddenly levels if your leadership score increases either.
So, it doesn't make much sense to reach that point. You could roleplay it; but if the cohort leaves, the PC just wasted a feat. Better to be clear from the start and leave the drinks for after the 1st meeting ;)
As for the OPs question, I would rule that bonuses from permanent magic items would count, surely not bonuses from some spells.
I don´t use this feat IMC. One of my characters has the knight class, and comes from an corresponding background (Shield Lands in Greyhawk). I just gave her a squire without any leadership feat, as she is the daughter of a minor noble. This just seemed fitting to me. Of course, the squire is the daughter of the local count, so this squire means as much trouble as support... The other players taunt the knights player with allusions of trying to hit on the squire :-).
Stefan
Why worthless? The table for cohorts and followers gives you the starting level for the cohort, but they can raise in levels up to the PC's level -1. The charisma score or, more appropriately, the leadership score has no bearing on this. So it's not really that painful, it might come 6 or 7 levels behind, but by virtue of the system it catches up pretty fast to that PC level -1 limit.
You know, I just assumed that Cohort Level referred to the max level he/she could be, period. But now that you point it out, the text never mentions Cohort Level as an ongoing restriction.
P.S. I agree that Leadership can be a silly feat. When I run a game with less than four players, I give everyone the option of having two PCs instead of one.
I agree with the general consensus here. I also agree Leadership is an annoying feat. Sometimes NPCs have it as an explanation for their mooks and mobs, sometimes they don't. But, if a player wanted to do that same thing, no matter how logical the reasoning may be, they need to burn a feat for it. PC wants to become a king? They'll probably be forced to take Leadership, even though most kings wouldn't have it and the mechanics for the feat don't allow for kingdom-sized events. I typically dislike the feat.
That said, it does provide some guidelins about what is or isn't appropriate in a campaign, much like the wealth-by-level charts. So, I haven't scrapped it totally, but the next time it comes up, I may well just let the players recieve the cohort benefit (or even the followers) as per their Leadership score if they had the feat, but not require them to take it. The determining factor would be the circumstances of the story and the roleplaying involved.
As an aside, Leadership strikes me very much like the "Red Dragon Pact" in the Githyanki description in the MM. It states that githyanki have a racial pact with red dragons and can make temporary alliances with them at the DM's discretion.
Now, they could have just said, without noting a subsection of Githyanki society, "Githyanki have a racial pact with red dragons. They are occassionally found in temporary alliances with such creatures, but the chaotic and greedy nature of both beings makes such agreements tenuous at best."
Da-da! Instead, we get something that sounds like a rules mechanic. Yes, I know I can make red dragons and githyanki allies if I'm the DM. I can make them all purple and walk on their hands if I want to. Why bother even putting in that section that states the overwhelmingly obvious?
WHY?!?!
Hehe, Saern's red in the face!
I disregard the followers part of the Leadership feat. If a character has a stronghold and land, they will have a community to care for and govern. If they have a reputation for being fair and generous, they will have a large and happy community. Game mechanics not included.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That said, it does provide some guidelins about what is or isn't appropriate in a campaign, much like the wealth-by-level charts. So, I haven't scrapped it totally, but the next time it comes up, I may well just let the players recieve the cohort benefit (or even the followers) as per their Leadership score if they had the feat, but not require them to take it. The determining factor would be the circumstances of the story and the roleplaying involved.
Funny you should mention that Saern, because Leadership is the 3e version of an inherent class ability from 1e/2e. In those editions, most classes could build a fortress and attract followers once they achieved "name" level (which I think was 12th, but I'm sure some grognard will post and correct me if I'm wrong). Most classes got doubld fistfulls of random puds (e.g., first level fighters), but the ranger had a sweet-ass list of monsters and such that they could attract.
That's neither here nor there though. I think it was made a feat in 3e because as an ability, it didn't make much sense for low cha characters and not all players want henchmen.
I tell you though Saern, it always amazes me that you seem to spontaneously come up with old 1e/2e rules even though you have never played those systems. A lot of them I always thought of as weird and arbitrary, and when you post some articulate justification for them, it always causes me to rethink, and in most instances, re-appreciate the rule.
|
... some grognard will post and correct me if I'm wrong.
That's probably me. 8-)
In OD&D, each level of each class came with a title. (E.g., a 6th level fighter was a Myrmidon.) At some level, you stopped getting new titles; that was Name level. The level at which this happened was class dependent (e.g., Fighter: 9th level, Magic User: 11th level). When you reached Name level, you could, as Sebastian said, build a keep and attract followers.
There wasn't really a cohort-equivalent in OD&D, though. (I'll let someone else with more experience of those games speak to the issue in 1st/2nd ed. AD&D.)
In 1e, there were these "name levels" as well, normally 9th, for wizards 11th level. From that level onward, the characters gained only a set number of hp for each new level they gained. Fighters and wizards attracted followers if they built a keep, thieves several other thieves, clerics might even build a religious stronghold,and will attract followers as early as 8th level, if he builds a shrine, and 20-200 of them...
Similar rules existed for basic D&D, and 2nd Ed. AD&D had these rules too. All had one thing in common: we never used them...
Stefan
That said, it does provide some guidelins about what is or isn't appropriate in a campaign, much like the wealth-by-level charts. So, I haven't scrapped it totally, but the next time it comes up, I may well just let the players recieve the cohort benefit (or even the followers) as per their Leadership score if they had the feat, but not require them to take it. The determining factor would be the circumstances of the story and the roleplaying involved.
Funny you should mention that Saern, because Leadership is the 3e version of an inherent class ability from 1e/2e. In those editions, most classes could build a fortress and attract followers once they achieved "name" level (which I think was 12th, but I'm sure some grognard will post and correct me if I'm wrong). Most classes got doubld fistfulls of random puds (e.g., first level fighters), but the ranger had a sweet-ass list of monsters and such that they could attract.
That's neither here nor there though. I think it was made a feat in 3e because as an ability, it didn't make much sense for low cha characters and not all players want henchmen.
I tell you though Saern, it always amazes me that you seem to spontaneously come up with old 1e/2e rules even though you have never played those systems. A lot of them I always thought of as weird and arbitrary, and when you post some articulate justification for them, it always causes me to rethink, and in most instances, re-appreciate the rule.
Thanks! ... I think....
EDIT - Oops, well, others beat me to the specifics. However, in my experience since the end of specific names at specific levels, the term "Name Level" means 10th, much like "high-level" generally means 15th and "Epic Level" since 3rd Edition now means 20th+. "Low" is thus 1-5 and "Mid-" is 5-10.
I'd say the term 'name level' went out with 1st and 2nd edition except among some die hard grognards who continue to think in these terms. In 3.5 there is nothing really special about 10th level when compared to 9th or 11th level.
Personally I don't allow magic items to effect the leadership table.
As to whether one should use leadership...well its a great rule if you have a small number of players. Especially if you only have say 3 players. If you have 6 or more I would remove or restrict it. Personally I allow it (I have 6 players) but only for creatures that don't gain class levels. In other words one can get monsters with it but not Monks or Clerics. Creatures that gain class levels are highly complex and having a player with two characters slows things down a great deal. Monsters tend to be fairly straight forward and are therefore much easier for players to run while still allowing non-druids or Paladins to pick up things like interesting mounts if they so desire them.
Personally I allow it (I have 6 players) but only for creatures that don't gain class levels. In other words one can get monsters with it but not Monks or Clerics.
What does your player with Leadership do when he's gained a few levels, but his monster buddy is still the same old baddie (and becoming more and more a weanie)?
Personally I allow it (I have 6 players) but only for creatures that don't gain class levels. In other words one can get monsters with it but not Monks or Clerics.What does your player with Leadership do when he's gained a few levels, but his monster buddy is still the same old baddie (and becoming more and more a weanie)?
Trades it in for a better monster.
Okay, that's fair. I'm just a little put off because the way you do it feels a lot more like a conjuration spell than a work of leadership. But hey, if it works, it works.
Okay, that's fair. I'm just a little put off because the way you do it feels a lot more like a conjuration spell than a work of leadership. But hey, if it works, it works.
It does have something of that feel but then so does the Druid and Rangers Animal Companion and if one chooses to get some of the better Familiars or Special Mounts for the Paladin, Wizard or Sorcerer (by spending some feats to get something more interesting then a tabby or a horse) we end up at the same place. So I'm not really inventing anything new here but simply treating leadership as another example of what is already being done with other classes. In fact I don't even think I'm adding anything at all. Animals were always part of leadership and many of the good and neutral creatures in the monster manual have a cohort rating. In essence I'm just being restrictive and saying 'you can't have henchmen 'cause its to complex, but I'll allow the animals'.
I suppose one could be more restrictive and not let the players get rid of them but your players would probably just suicide them in that case. I pretty much guarantee that, if this is being done in your game, your players will like whatever animal they choose, but their dreaming of the day they can get a dragon. Trying to thwart that ambition will cause more trouble then its worth. Better to not allow animals via leadership then to allow them but try and restrict their fantasy of one day having a Dragon of their very own.
Very true. I tend to disregard the fact that druids and rangers can swap out animal companions as they go, because I don't like it. I shouldn't disregard this, but I do. If arcanists have to take a feat to get a better familiar, why do druids and rangers get better companions for free? Hm, this has got me thinking...