Do you allow leadership feat as a DM? Yes or no and why not???
I have FOUR players who all just decided to take leadership and I am kind of stressing out; is this a big deal or not??? They are all wanting cohorts to bring along!
Thanks guys!!!
|
I usually allow Leadership in groups of four or fewer players; if you have more than that, it becomes a hassle to keep track of all the cohorts.
It's a little odd that all of your players want the feat, though. What kind of characters are they all playing and what kind of cohorts do they want? Please include their levels and Charisma scores.
6 players
4 want cohorts
Wizard - 14 charisma
Pali - 16 charisma
Monk - 17 charisma
cleric - 16 charisma
I usually allow Leadership in groups of four or fewer players; if you have more than that, it becomes a hassle to keep track of all the cohorts.
It's a little odd that all of your players want the feat, though. What kind of characters are they all playing and what kind of cohorts do they want? Please include their levels and Charisma scores.
|
|
If you have six players, I wouldn't recommend allowing cohorts. It will be a massive headache for you to keep track of the actions of 10 party members at a time. Combat will slow to a crawl and you'll have to pack in even more enemies for them to even stand a chance. Also, what kind of point buy are you using where a Monk can afford 17 Charisma?
I dont point buy, they roll 4d6; drop the lowest; re-roll ones. He just decided to take a 17 in cha; beats me???
If you have six players, I wouldn't recommend allowing cohorts. It will be a massive headache for you to keep track of the actions of 10 party members at a time. Combat will slow to a crawl and you'll have to pack in even more enemies for them to even stand a chance. Also, what kind of point buy are you using where a Monk can afford 17 Charisma?
I allow it
Leadership really boosts the party power level. Keep in mind that all your encounters will likely have to scale-up to try to keep pace with 10(!) characters attacking them. Single monsters of appropriate CR will no longer work at all, you will have to throw large groups back at them, which will make encounters quite long (real time and game time).
I'd allow it, with the caveat that the cohorts are not routinely adventuring with the party, but are rather building and running some kind of appropriate organization that the PC is the leader of. Every once in a while, when the story fits, the cohort can join the party, but otherwise they are at home tending to the day to day needs of the new group. This gives them the benefits of the feat while giving you material to work with at minimal headache to yourself and the party.
Do you allow leadership feat as a DM? Yes or no and why not???
I have FOUR players who all just decided to take leadership and I am kind of stressing out; is this a big deal or not??? They are all wanting cohorts to bring along!
Thanks guys!!!
Oh hell no.
Its unmitigated player cheese that can step on the toes of other players when an NPC usurps their role.
|
Do you allow leadership feat as a DM? Yes or no and why not???
I have FOUR players who all just decided to take leadership and I am kind of stressing out; is this a big deal or not??? They are all wanting cohorts to bring along!
Thanks guys!!!
As a DM and as a player, I like Leadership. Having a cohort really opens up alot more roleplaying possibilities in the game. When I DM, I have a few caveats, however:
1) Available cohorts are drawn from the existing pool of NPCs. They don't just magically appear. The PCs have to actively seek them out over the course of the game. This basically means that I control what's available as far as class, race, and abilities.
2) The cohort is a person with feelings and personal motivations. I typically allow players to control cohorts, but reserve the right to take over its actions as the circumstances dictate.
3) To simplify combat, it is assumed that any cohorts will "wait" for directives from their leader. This means that a PC's cohort acts on the PC's initiative, much like a summoned creature.
If you'd like to discourage so many cohorts in your game, you may want to remind your players that any new cohorts will expect a share of the treasure. Since you already have 6 players, I'd imagine their available funds are already stretched pretty thin.
I've always allowed players to take Leadership, through not that many in the past have been all that interested in it. I normally only see one or two players that want followers and cohorts.
I'm a pretty by the books Dungeon Master and thus allow my players pretty much free access to anything they can qualify for and justify in character.
To help ease the burden of a cohort on the story than if the player doesn't already have a sound idea of what they want their cohort to be I will work with them to create something that adds to the party but is generally a second stringer. A support caster, an odd skill jobber, and item crafter are some of the more common cohorts I've seen.
However, on the other hand I can see where you're coming from. Four cohorts in a party of six players could be a lot to deal with. I would suggest asking them why their characters, not the players, want cohorts and how involved they expect the cohorts to be.
|
|
I'd allow it, with the caveat that the cohorts are not routinely adventuring with the party, but are rather building and running some kind of appropriate organization that the PC is the leader of. Every once in a while, when the story fits, the cohort can join the party, but otherwise they are at home tending to the day to day needs of the new group. This gives them the benefits of the feat while giving you material to work with at minimal headache to yourself and the party.
I like this alot. Anything that encourages the PCs to invest in the world/setting is a plus. This would work especially well for PCs with ambitions to build a stronghold.
Just tell them that the Cohort gets a share of the XP if they take them on adventures. 6 players + 4 cohorts = split XP 10 ways. Or just say the cohort takes half of its player's XP. They probably won't want them anymore. And if they do, they'll just be leveling more slowly. As a player, keeping track of a cohort is a pain in the rump.
|
What sunshadow said.
Cohorts are primarily running the PC's organization, estate, fiefdom, or some other grand purpose for the PC. Followers have important support roles beneath the cohort where trust is needed.
Where appropriate the cohorts are the well equipped reinforcements and extra aid when called upon for special missions. They don't travel with the PC a 100% of the time.
I've had players have their characters take their wives as cohorts to be sure she can take care of herself and the homestead. I've had player characters decline leadership of a great temple only to seethat their cohort gains the leadership role while the character continues to conduct special missions for their church. Hell, in my current kingmaker campaign all 5 of my players are looking at taking the Leadership feat come 7th level. They want to be sure that when they are not around that their cohorts can take care of things and can back them up when they need to call them in for the heavier stuff.
If the playrs can all make their decisions quickly it likely isnt that much of a problem. if you feel any of them struggle to make decisions with one character then i would shy them away from it.
That said Leadership isnt "Build a slave" idealy you ask the player what sort of cohorts he expects to attract, then Build somone to fit him.. or just Build somone you think would be attracted to serve that character and discuss it with them.
But its important to rememer the cohorts are not a subset of the PC.
I allow it. Had two players take it in my monster campaign.
They quickly decided it was not worth it. :)
Remember, if they're dragging a cohort around, they are also dragging around 2 dozen 1st and 2nd level npcs. They don't get to just pick the cohort and not the followers. It becomes a financial and logistical pain to have 2 dozen npcs following around. Equipping them, keeping them out of BBEG fights, feeding them, paying them money, dealing with locals who see this army coming at them and assume it's a siege or bandits or something.
They ended up assigning one of the cohorts to an embassy, and all the followers of both to the embassy as staff. They only pulled along one cohort, a cleric, to buff the healing, since they didn't have a cleric.
Pretty sure you can just ignore the followers. though i suppose you can get the "Sir Reginald the Brave" fan club. They start a news letter and argue over which of your exploits was the greatest.
sadly it all comes to a tragic end when Sir Reginald is killed by the head of his fan club in a jelous rage over the time he spends with that elf floozy on adventures.
|
|
Do you allow leadership feat as a DM? Yes or no and why not???
I have FOUR players who all just decided to take leadership and I am kind of stressing out; is this a big deal or not??? They are all wanting cohorts to bring along!
Thanks guys!!!
It's one of the few feats that I blanket ban from my games.
It's a headache and causes arguments at every step of the process*. Do you a) allow the PC to craft the perfect complementary character to shore up there weaknesses or B) build it for them and have them feel powerless in the process? Do you A) allow them to run the cohort as basically a second character or like Leadership gave the two characters perfect mindlinks or B) run the NPC yourself and take the control and choice from the player while at the same time adding yet another thing that you have to track on your side of the screen during a fight? Are you being unfair if you kill the NPC during a fight or with a trap? What if the NPC also takes leadership? what about the followers? It complicates adventure design by introducing another character with another set of skill that you have to plan for when highlighting party strengths/weaknesses.
It would be easier if you just let them take a feat that said "every round you can take a swift action to gain another standard action."
I would allow it, though no one in my group (current and previous) has shown any interest. I do have some caveats too though...
I don't have a hard and fast rule of how many people can take it. It depends more on the person than the ammount. If it's a new guy who doesn't own his own books, gets the dice mixed up, and has to look up what magic missile does...then yeah, I'm going to talk him out of it.
They don't get to create their cohort or choose what's going on with their followers. I'll work with them, though they don't get to use game mechanics in the conversation.
The cohort levels as the leadership score increases, so xp doesn't get cut up any more. I don't give any input into how the party divides treasure, so they would need to decide if the cohort gets an equal share, part of the owners share, or something else.
Loyalty will be decided on treatment. Being that they spent a feat the cohort is going to be fairly loyal to begin with...but not everyone has battered wives syndrome...
I have allowed in in my own game and now have two PC's with the feat. The caveat to taking the feat was that cohorts must be recruited from an 'existing' pool of NPC's that are generated by myself. I also reserve the right to take over the cohort and run them as an NPC at any time. This also goes for leveling up, for which input from the PC can be given, but is sometimes not taken. Like many others have posted, cohorts have their own motivations which can make for fun complications.
Overall they have been a positive influence on the game, but they do slow combats down a bit. They tend to be more fragile than a PC (28 vs 32 point buy's) and are often relegated to support roles, AKA run and hide until the fight is over.
I allow it, its just needs to be run carefully.
Remember, the cohort is not a robot and has their own motives and desires!
Do you allow leadership feat as a DM? Yes or no and why not???
I have FOUR players who all just decided to take leadership and I am kind of stressing out; is this a big deal or not??? They are all wanting cohorts to bring along!
Thanks guys!!!
Yes I allow it but within limits. They only get the cohort, and sometimes only 2 people are allowed to have it. It really depends on if I think they are taking it for RP or power reasons.
One thing to consider is that the players have to keep themselves and the cronie equipped well enough to survive off the gold that normally goes to one player. I also make them NPC stats when making the NPC.
Allow it mainly a a purpoe to obtain a mount for classe without companion, bond, or planar ally/binding.
Well, I got two characters with leadership in my group, both with cohorts. The cohorts are pretty badly equipped, so they are in much more danger of getting offed than the PC's ( and this already happened with one two sessions ago ), yet they both fill out roles which are unoccupied in the group. All in all, it strikes a good balance.
I allow it.
I reserve the right to take over the cohort at any time.
I reserve the right to veto any leveling changes the player is looking at, and of insisting on the ones that I feel appropriate.
The cohort is not a robot, has feelings and ambitions, and can leave if subject to continued abuse. Abuse includes not being properly equipped.
The player with the cohort must be organized and able to handle the additional decision making and dice rolling in an efficient and organized manner. Example, having multiple colored dice sets, so all the attacks are rolled in one shot, along with the damage dice.
I allow the players to divide any loot, and usually the cohort get's their fair share, as my players have decided for role play reasons that their characters would not have a bias against the cohort for loot purposes.
Cohorts are not limited to humanoids, so one that is being looked at by a player right now is a blink dog, who will gain in sorcerer levels as the leadership score and PC levels go up. At times in the past, other cohorts have been intelligent mounts - this allowed them to gain levels, to be able to survive encounters, especially ambush encounters, rather than the PCs having to continually buy new mounts.
Everyone can take leadership, but I cap the party at 6. So if there are five players, only one cohort can come. After that, I incur XP penalties because the game gets too easy.
I love leadership, as a GM it presents quite a few unique circumstances to bring forth. I use a lot of qualities that other players do however.
1) the player can choose to petition for a specific class "Sir Pantalone seeks an experienced cleric", but i may add multiclasses to his base class request.
2) i follow the core rules for leveling up and handling equipment.
3) i RP the character and level him up. in combat the player can give suggestions for actions but it's up to the NPC to follow them or not.
4) i flesh out a complete personality complete with flaws,the NPC might be the class the player wants but not the type of person the player wants around 24/7 lol. there alignment is usually with one step to alleviate to much disruption and ridiculousness.
5)I dont maximize the cohorts build or power-play him.
6) The cohort acts freely and may even voice his own opinion on matters and situations.
7) the cohort allows some quirky characters that players may not usually play themselves. example, the gruff barbarian ends up with a loud mouthed comic!
8)RP RP RP! i love using cohorts to engage more roleplay from characters. it's one thing to encounter a random NPC it's another to have a trusted member of the party to RP with. this comes in ral handy if you have a group that has trouble RPing in general.
10) i play cohorts as complete individuals. some may delay and wait for orders, some may run and hide, some may just be there to get a peace of the fame and only take watches and watch the horses. I never let them be just extensions of the player to supplement his weakness, create magic items for him, or to help the rogue get flanking 24/7. Since i control the cohort mostly i still allow players to make roles for the cohort.
Cohorts can be a great asset depending on the campaign. especially if your running a game like kingmaker where the players need rulers to fill roles with people they can trust.
Steve-if anyone i think the monk really deserves a cohort if he wants one. out of all your player he didn't max his character AT ALL and it's not like he really gets to use his high CHR for class features. And if you let one take a cohort it's only far to let all the players do so. you can always let them take laedership as a trial and see how things go! if it' really bogs things down or doesn't work out let them retrain the feat later.
as for encounters it's really not that hard to work around. Enemies and monsters can take leadership too! If it makes sense, for every cohort the PC's have allow the enemies the same ;)
I allow it. I have a group that has been around since the mid 80s and they now have a group of 14! 7 players and 7 cohorts plus the added troops that came with the cohort.
The Cohorts make it so everyone, regardless of the scenario has a dog in the fight. Scouting, combat, research and skills.
They love it. I have adjusted after they destroyed the first few encounters. It was quite an eye opening. It does allow me to break from the 15 min Adventuring Day as this group can handle 5 or 6 good encounters in a game day and not feel the need to scurry off and rest.
In several adventures they were in a harrying / harried war and some days got almost zero down time and they had the healing and magic depth to keep on chugging through the waves of minions attempting to over run their Castle / Fortified Town till the the enemy was in danger of being cut off from their supply lines.
You will need to be very aware of the force multipliers involved in a group nearing 10 souls. If you can adjust it might just be some of the best times you will have.
Keep in mind, they have their own personalities and quirks. They are not robots to keep around making items for the group or doing all the scut work. If they are mistreated, they roll out and spread the word not to work for the 'Yahoos' over in Shmukville.
Hope some of this helps
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~
I allow it, but limit the cohorts to NPC classes. That way the player can somewhat overcome one of his shortcomings without overshadowing an equal level party member, especially not in combat.
A wizard that requires a bodyguard can take a warrior of two levels lower.
A fighter that requires a healer can take an adept of two levels lower.
A druid that requires a diplomat can take an expert of two levels lower.
It's not too powerful, and unless played correctly, the cohorts can become deadweight.
6 players
4 want cohorts
Wizard - 14 charisma
Pali - 16 charisma
Monk - 17 charisma
cleric - 16 charisma
I allow the feat, but I've only had one player take the feat. And his character intentionally left behind what followers I started to hand the character, taking just the cohort (which was a sort of otherworldly mount)--who even then does not follow her everywhere she goes. (In fact, I've got to remember to reunite them after their current adventure, as she left her cohort behind.) So I'm in a very different situation.
What I would say however is this:
Firstly, sit down with your players and talk about this. Talk about their expectations, what they want to do with their cohorts/followers, how they see this affecting the story. Talk about what difficulties you foresee--and what opportunities. This is the most important thing.
Be clear that you cannot be expected to control a billion follower NPCs while running other aspects of the game. Be also clear however that having a cohort/followers is carte blanche to have a bunch of little mindless robots doing their bidding without consequences. Remind them that they are responsible for their cohorts/followers well-being and safety and that if they fail at that, you have every right within the rules written to make them start leaving. (One of the reasons why my player with the leadership feat didn't take a bevy of followers with her is she didn't want to drag a bunch of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level characters into the headquarters of the god of undeath. She figured it would be poor for their health)
Remind them also that if each player ends up with 20 or so followers (stab at a number), they have to outfit them, equip them, feed them, etc. Ask them how much they are willing to pay for this--and if the two players who are NOT going to take leadership are willing to allow party funds to be diverted toward supporting the "staff."
Be clear that while you will not go out of your way to hurt cohorts or followers, cohorts and followers are mortal and weaker than the party members, and if put in danger, can likely die (which beyond narrative implications, will impact their leadership score).
Other thoughts:
If they want to gather an army, then give them a war to fight. I'd actually see something like this as an opportunity to take a campaign in an unusual direction. Because it's unusual, it will create more work on your part but if your players are willing to work with you and see where this goes, it could be very fun, very memorable. Give them a fortress to defend or a goal to achieve, and jobs for the cohorts/followers to do which simultaneously makes them useful--but also gets them out of the way of the main narrative if they would otherwise be intrusive.
On the other hand, sometimes people really want the cohorts, and less interested in followers. If four people want squires or servants so to speak, it is possible to focus on that and have four non-combat supporters (I would suggest insisting on non-combat because they will be lower level than the party and be easy to hurt, and also because it will make more work for you to design combats bearing cohorts in mind). Having a few "merry men" can be fun--it's just how you work it out with the party.
Hasn't really come up since our games have scads of NPCs to begin with. They just hide and don't help out when the fighting starts.
I've always allowed it but rarely comes up. I think it will though in the King Make AP we just started though. As well I have character I want to take Leadership just not sure where I'll fit it. Probably won't show up till I'm much higher level.
|
|
Its more appropriate in some campaigns in some settings than others. It is an excellent feat for players in a Kingmaker campaign... and rarely a pain in any particular body part. The players tend to either leave their cohorts in charge in their absence while they go off to investigate some adventure hook ("Number one, you have the bridge."), or they're sending their cohorts to deal with situations that are beneath them ("We're 8th level. I really don't want to go fight a kobold uprising. We can send the B Team to investigate and deal with it or report if its more than our reports would seem to indicate.")
I allow it, but only in groups with mature players. Even then, I only allow 6 characters total (whether they are cohorts or not).
I also build and control all cohorts with input from the respective players as to what they are trying to attract.
On at least one occasion, I explained these rules to a player who wanted to take the feat to which I was battered with:
"What do you mean I don't get to make and control my own cohort? And they have NPC stats? Who would ever take the feat then!? It's practically worthless with your house rules!"
That player did not get to take Leadership (not that he wanted to after our "discussion").
What I think is funny is that, except for my 6 character limitation, none of the above are really house rules.
I allow it, but only in groups with mature players. Even then, I only allow 6 characters total (whether they are cohorts or not).
I also build and control all cohorts with input from the respective players as to what they are trying to attract.
On at least one occasion, I explained these rules to a player who wanted to take the feat to which I was battered with:
"What do you mean I don't get to make and control my own cohort? And they have NPC stats? Who would ever take the feat then!? It's practically worthless with your house rules!"
That player did not get to take Leadership (not that he wanted to after our "discussion").
What I think is funny is that, except for my 6 character limitation, none of the above are really house rules.
I rather like that approach RD. I'll have to keep that in mind if I allow the feat.
To the OP: I've never had to decide really because no one has ever been interested in it. My group fluctuates between 2 and 8 players, so what happens is if the party is too small, like say 2 players, I just let them each run 2 PCs. If it's 3 players, they sometimes get the help of an outside NPC. 4 or more players, it's back to normal.
I find it interesting that so many Dungeon Masters build and control the cohort and followers that come along with Leadership. Its' never occured to me to do as such, I've always allowed my players to craft their own cohorts, roughly decide what kind of followers they have, and control/role play them as they see fit within reason. So they're free to choose actions in combat and how the cohort interacts with the world but no ordering them into clearly suicidal actions.
For the most part cohorts in my games are built to the same specs as player character, save for the lower level, and I encourge players to treat cohorts as fellow adventures. I also increase the amount of treasure in adventures to provide cohorts with a level correct amount of wealth without having to cut into anyone elses share.
While I respect and understand the decision as a Dungeon Master to craft and control cohorts/followers personally, I would as a player chose not to take the Leadership feat if those were the conditions. It would sit with me about as well as being told what spells I was allowed to apply metamagic feats or taking a weapon proficiency feat and having the Dungeon Master decide what weapon it was for.
To me the feat belongs to the player and should be enacted as the player wishes. Just my opinion of course, to each their own.
Currently no as our group is seven strong, but in a smaller group certainly. It allows the DM to add dynamics to the game and can help in party's that are small and may lack a certain skill set. It is also much better than having DM run PC's.
I find it interesting that so many Dungeon Masters build and control the cohort and followers that come along with Leadership. Its' never occured to me to do as such, I've always allowed my players to craft their own cohorts, roughly decide what kind of followers they have, and control/role play them as they see fit within reason. So they're free to choose actions in combat and how the cohort interacts with the world but no ordering them into clearly suicidal actions.
For the most part cohorts in my games are built to the same specs as player character, save for the lower level, and I encourge players to treat cohorts as fellow adventures. I also increase the amount of treasure in adventures to provide cohorts with a level correct amount of wealth without having to cut into anyone elses share.
While I respect and understand the decision as a Dungeon Master to craft and control cohorts/followers personally, I would as a player chose not to take the Leadership feat if those were the conditions. It would sit with me about as well as being told what spells I was allowed to apply metamagic feats or taking a weapon proficiency feat and having the Dungeon Master decide what weapon it was for.
To me the feat belongs to the player and should be enacted as the player wishes. Just my opinion of course, to each their own.
I would not take it if a DM had to build mine for me either, not that I have ever taken it. It is just the principle of the matter. As a DM I have enough things to worry about besides making another NPC. If I don't trust them to be reasonable with the feat I just don't game with them, and I am well aware that having a trust worthy table is not an option for everyone.
|
I am currently running a Kingmaker campaign, and am allowing "Leadership". I have had only one PC ask about it. So I don't see it as a big deal. Also, it has been talked about, and I have told them that I expect that a cohort be an existing NPC. (There are quite a few of them in Kingmaker.) I'll deal with it. If they can give me a good reason for having it, they can have it.
I think it's fine to ban Leadership based on what you're doing with your game, but you always have to have it in the back of your mind that if you ban it (or pile on enough restrictions that it's not attractive to take) that you're strongly encouraging Charisma as a dump stat (beyond what the game already does.)
It's unfortunate that Leadership is one of very few good reasons for someone who doesn't have class features tied to Charisma to have it higher than 7, but, there it is.
I tend to play in a more 1e-2e mode so while there are Cohorts, Followers, Hirelings, etc they are not the result of taking a feat but are instead gained through roleplaying.
The result is that if you want to have a Cohort you don't have a feat tax for getting one. However it also comes with the limitation that cohorts, followers, hirelings, etc are not an intrinsic part of your character and act in their own enlightened self-interest.
If the PC wants a mindless slave to do x,y and z then they need to charm/dominate/bind/create them ;)
The result is that while cohorts can often be specialists they are very rarely if ever diplomancers, healbots, or dedicated crafters. They typically want a share of the loot, get XP, tend to think for themselves, and present all sorts of interesting roleplaying hooks. In return for their loyalty they expect the party to expend resources to equip, train and keep them living according to their station ;)
Mechanically, hirelings show up very early on. If the PCs are low level and want to hire a lantern bearer or a couple of mercenaries they are perfectly free to do so. Negotiate a daily, weekly or monthly wage and they'll be loyal as long as a better offer doesn't come up or they get abused by the PCs.
By the time the PCs are well known on the local scene (level 4-6) the opportunity generally comes up for the PCs to begin recruiting cohorts. If they have a good reputation for bravery, fairness and heroics then lower level NPCs might try to attach their banner to the PCs meteoric ascents.
Cohorts can be used to adventure with, set to various tasks (such as downtime crafting), or they can just be doing more independent things. For the most part I try to limit the total number of active cohorts to a reasonable number or the action economy and design of encounters gets really tortured but for the most part it only rarely exceeds a tolerance level. Since the PCs aren't actually investing character resources into the cohort I can also feel free to kill one off permanently if I need to free up some room.
Followers show up at 10+ and are not effective aides on adventures, they almost exclusively get used to maintain strongholds, garrison towns and villages, and act as a major drain on PC resources ;)
If the character (or NPC) has a ton of resources or a noble standing they can often have "cohorts" that actually outstrip their level. I do this because I don't like having every "leader" be high level and sometimes low level aristocrats have temporal power far in excess of their personal might. RAW leadership doesn't really allow for this level of verisimilitude and I like PCs and NPCs using the same ruleset so this is another reason to dump the leadership feat.
In our Kingmaker campaign the DM has allowed Leadership. Partly for roleplaying opportunities and partly because we are shortly going to be down to 3 players.
We have hit level 7 and once our Witch player (the closest thing to a healer in the party) leaves soon we will be down to a fighter, ranger and rogue/mage.
My fighter is the ruler, just became Duke, and I could have just gone for a cleric cohort so the party didn't get hammered every encounter (the first two players we lost played a fighter and paladin so my fighter now feels a bit exposed on the front line). Plus my unbuffed CHA is only 9 so my leadership score is not too high (low CHA as the Kingmaker ruler adds some mechanical difficulties but makes for great RPing opportunities)
Instead I wanted a bard because it fit more in with my character - the Duke has his own personal jester/storyteller (plus he will be reasonably good at healing). Originally I rolled him up as a halfling but as we get on very well with the kobolds the DM agreed he could be a kobold.
So now the party is a bit more balanced, I have some fun RPing the kobold bard - "Giacomo, King of Jesters and Jester to the Duke..." (pick the movie reference there!). Plus the DM can use him for storytelling purposes and to nudge the plot in certain directions if need be. He may take a level or two of Craft (Brewing) so I can work in a few "flagon with the dragon, pestle on the trestle" references too ;-)
One of the players, out of game, even wrote an epic ballad about the Duke and his companions.
So in answer to the OP's question, I think Leadership is fine provided:
a. the DM and player work together to create the cohort
b. the player is capable of handling two characters without slowing the game down
c. the party doesn't become too unwieldy for the DM to handle (ie doesn't have to constantly rebalance encounters as the party is too strong)
d. the players doesn't mind if the DM "takes over" the cohort periodically for plot purposes
I find it interesting that so many Dungeon Masters build and control the cohort and followers that come along with Leadership. Its' never occured to me to do as such, I've always allowed my players to craft their own cohorts, roughly decide what kind of followers they have, and control/role play them as they see fit within reason. So they're free to choose actions in combat and how the cohort interacts with the world but no ordering them into clearly suicidal actions.(snipped valuable thoughts for length).
Ideally, I think designing cohorts and followers should be done. Players and GMs are not enemies and it does not have to be an either/or situation.
GMs need a hand in it for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, the following:
- It's the GM's world, and they know best where these characters are going to be coming from
- The GM has to deal with how cohorts and followers may affect upcoming encounters and story elements. More people with the party means more resources means certain things are easier. It is the GM's job to challenge the party (NOTE: I did NOT say it was the GM's job to make things difficult for the party; there is a difference), so added cohorts and followers can make it harder for the GM to do her job.
- The GM may, depending on how the GM and players agree to do certain things, end up playing some or all of the cohort/followers (they are after all referred to as NPCs RAW, and GM plays the NPCs). So they need to know what they're playing. Even if the GM does not play them, sometimes the GM may realize a cohort would have story information a player would not know and take on playing them even if temporarily. (In the game I run, the player controls the cohort--but I still take on roleplaying the cohort when the player has questions that the player obviously does not know the answers to and it would be stupid for the PC to be conversing with herself)
Players need a hand in it for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, the following:
- The player is aware of a need the party has they are hoping to fill by using the cohort.
- It is, as you say, the PC's feat, not the GM's. :)
- The player may have their own ideas related to their character's background that would help explain where these cohorts/followers are coming from.
There is no reason why they shouldn't work together to make sure both "sides'" needs and desires are met.
For the record, in my campaign, I had a player with a PC cleric who wanted a special mount. I suggested taking the leadership feat--after all, it also suited the PC's background where she was becoming a bit renowned, and she could use the followers in the upcoming storyline. The player had been eying certain things like the Nightmare, "but not evil," and the PC had some mysterious origins/divine calling she was still learning about. I designed a custom creature based on the Nightmare--but indeed, not evil--with the description the player gave me, and gave him the opportunity to review the character sheet to make sure it suited what he had wanted (it did). I probably could have sat down and co-designed it with the player, but that's what seemed to work best at the time (easier to email ideas back and forth).
If the character (or NPC) has a ton of resources or a noble standing they can often have "cohorts" that actually outstrip their level. I do this because I don't like having every "leader" be high level and sometimes low level aristocrats have temporal power far in excess of their personal might. RAW leadership doesn't really allow for this level of verisimilitude and I like PCs and NPCs using the same ruleset so this is another reason to dump the leadership feat.
I can see the verisimilitude argument, but the RAW position that cohorts can never be more than the PC's level -2 is there for game balance reasons--if the cohort can slay the dragon when the PC cannot, something is wrong (OTOH, some people say that about the Summoner ;) ). I'd be curious how you'd play out a higher level cohort and not allow players to abuse that "resource," as it were.