| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leadership.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon Finesse.
I'd much prefer it if many weapons simply had a 'finesse' keyword like 'brace' or 'reach', which allowed one to use them with DEX as opposed to STR.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Antagonize
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agile Maneuvers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Improved and Greater Two Weapon Fighting (they should be rolled into Two Weapon Fighting)
Same with Improved and Greater Vital Strike. (I like Vital Strike being a feat, just one that scales.)
Weapon Finesse.
I'd much prefer it if many weapons simply had a 'finesse' keyword like 'brace' or 'reach', which allowed one to use them with DEX as opposed to STR.
+1
This. I like the idea of dexterous fighters backstabbing the baddies and all, but this feat tax, plus damage limits on lower Str, puts them in an uphill battle versus the chud fighter.
Oh, and for my submission, Rapid Reload.
The crossbow changed warfare in its time. For much the same reason it's shown in this game, as its much simpler to use than a bow. But any self-respecting archer takes up training in a bow, and uses that deadly accuracy to great effect in this game. Crossbows, not so much. They're something for your wizard to do when he's out of spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eschew Materials
The only component that doesn't cost anything that I can even remember is bat guano for a fireball.
All anyone does is:
1. check spell for material components
2. Check character sheet for spell component pouch
3. ???
4. Loot dead bodies (profit)
Great thread!
I often wondered if Power Attack and combat expertise could just be combat options. (Note: power attack with a two handed weapon being X3 is a little too powerful to get for free. And deadly aim might fall into the same category?)
Leadership though is the big "thing that should not be a feat". I don't know if it should even be a game mechanic, or just left to a GM.
I can see doing martial and exotic weapon proficiencies differently, although that may be as simple as getting one weapon per 5 BAB each time you take the feat.
I kind of like that weapon finesse requires a feat. I think that keeps some characters from being totally Dex based (until they take the feat anyway).
How about heighten spell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All IMHO:
TWF should be an auto scaling feat.
Leadership-not a feat.
Weapon finesse-not a feat.
Eschew Materials-is good enough to be a trait, but not feat.
Antagonize should not exist.
PS:If antagonize has been errat'd then I might change my mind. I know I don't like version 1.
All the magic item crafting feats.
For what reasons?
I recall back in AD&D, you couldn't craft a magic fart until 11th level, which is the equivalent of like 23rd level in 3.5/Pathfinder.
All the magic item crafting feats.
+1
How about heighten spell?
Can't believe I forgot this one. +1.
Great thread!
....Leadership though is the big "thing that should not be a feat". I don't know if it should even be a game mechanic, or just left to a GM.....
It should be a little of both, IMO. Everyone in my game has a leadership score, as if they had the feat. Taking the feat gives you a +3, like skill focus for it. Getting followers is never a given and needs to be RP'd out, somewhat. I also half heartedly track reputation, which ties into leadership as well.
As far as what shouldn't be a feat? Weapon Finesse, absolutely. Like ringtail said, it should be a weapon property. I also agree that most of the feat chains should just scale with BAB. Combat expertise, I'm looking at you, too.
|
All the magic item crafting feats.
For what reasons?
I recall back in AD&D, you couldn't craft a magic fart until 11th level, which is the equivalent of like 23rd level in 3.5/Pathfinder.
There is some stated reason for the other whines beside "I wish ..."?
If you want one, limiting the construction feats is more restrictive for the non caster characters than for the caster characters.
Potions are a great resource for non casters, especially if created with high caster levels, but few players will take brew potions to help the other party members.
Similarly if a caster should chose between craft wands and craft weapons and armors he will often chose the former as it is more useful for him and a prerequisite for some higher level feat/discovery.
Feats are a scarce resource. If you have to chose most of the time you will chose what help you more and not what help the other members of the party more.
Several crafting feats fall in that category.
All the magic item crafting feats.
For what reasons?
I recall back in AD&D, you couldn't craft a magic fart until 11th level, which is the equivalent of like 23rd level in 3.5/Pathfinder.
There is some stated reason for the other whines beside "I wish ..."?
If you want one, limiting the construction feats is more restrictive for the non caster characters than for the caster characters.
Potions are a great resource for non casters, especially if created with high caster levels, but few players will take brew potions to help the other party members.
Similarly if a caster should chose between craft wands and craft weapons and armors he will often chose the former as it is more useful for him and a prerequisite for some higher level feat/discovery.Feats are a scarce resource. If you have to chose most of the time you will chose what help you more and not what help the other members of the party more.
Several crafting feats fall in that category.
They could get combined into a single feat "Craft Magical Thingamajigs and Doohickeys"
Leadership.When you say things that should not be feats, are you expecting them for free, or for having them removed from the game?
Or either?
- Gain proficiency with a weapon (the only meaningful distinction between weapons whether they are 'light','one-handed',and 'two-handed' unless you have supplemental enhancements.)
- Power Attack/Deadly Strike/Combat Expertise (the trade off is enough that a feat isn't needed)
- Weapon Finesse (or any feat that is just a tax to maintain your relevance and does not make you more versatile or more powerful)
- Feat chain starters that are extremely weak and narrow but are excused because they grant access to something worth while later on. The feat choice of a 3rd level character should not be contingent upon something he could only have if he were 5th level. Every choice you make for your character should have meaning.
- Dastardly Finish (should have been a rogue trick IMHO)
- Quick Draw (seriously we can just tie this to BAB. +1 lets you draw as part of a move action. +X lets you draw as a swift action. +Y lets you draw as a free or immediate action. You only get a finite number of feats. If every cool thing you can do is a feat, you won't be able to do very many cool things.)
- Rapid Reload (see Quick Draw and BAB scaling)
- Unseat (You can seriously just make this part of the normal rules for bull-rush)
- Weapon Focus (A +5% chance to hit? No you shouldn't have. No...really. You shouldn't have.)
- Babble-Peddler or any other feat that grants you an "ability" that everybody already has (everyone has the ability to attempt to deceive someone into thinking an object is worth more than it is. Who ever though this was a good idea for a feat must have been having a bad day)
- Caustic Slur (heres a feat that grants your favored enemies bonuses against you if they fail a will save. That's all the feat actually does. Read it carefully. They don't need to attack you and aren't penalized for ignoring you. They are allowed to vent their rage on the squishy wizard next to them.)
Feats that step on skills should be abolished. Add minimum numbers of ranks and/or DCs if needed, but for the love of Gary, don't make a single feat render a skill obsolete -- or worse, make the feat a tax to use the skill. Moving the 3.0/3.5 Track feat into the Survival skill in PF was a step in the right direction, but I wish they hadn't stopped there. I'd like to see movement through threatened squares to be the sole purview of the Acrobatics skill, for example, instead of having a Mobility feat allowing you to do it with no chance of failure and no ranks at all in the skill. I'd like to see Quick Draw become part of the Sleight of Hand skill. Etc.
The thread premise was left deliberately vague. What I had in mind was things that ought to be generic mechanics rather than feats. Beyond that, some things just make very poor, imbalanced, or silly feats.
This being a matter of opinion, I hardly expect consensus on all points... but Leadership seems to me to be the best example of something that is a feat but really shouldn't be. It is way overpowered for a single feat, it lends itself to abuse, it isn't as fully explained as it ought to be, and it encompasses a concept that could be handled with the Diplomacy skill and a shrewd investment of coin.
But it's a feat. It was made so when the game was young, and the notion of feats was still being explored. I think it was sort of a failed experiment then, and it boggles my mind to think it made the leap from the DMG to the CRB as a no-strings-attached, fully available basic feat.
Feats that step on skills should be abolished. Add minimum numbers of ranks and/or DCs if needed, but for the love of Gary, don't make a single feat render a skill obsolete -- or worse, make the feat a tax to use the skill. Moving the 3.0/3.5 Track feat into the Survival skill in PF was a step in the right direction, but I wish they hadn't stopped there. I'd like to see movement through threatened squares to be the sole purview of the Acrobatics skill, for example, instead of having a Mobility feat allowing you to do it with no chance of failure and no ranks at all in the skill. I'd like to see Quick Draw become part of the Sleight of Hand skill. Etc.
Time and time again I have found this to not be the case. +4 AC does not equate to no chance for failure.
I suppose YMMV, though.
+4 AC does not equate to no chance for failure.
No, it doesn't, and I stand corrected. But a +4 makes the feat replace 4 ranks of the skill. Why? Why not just leave it as Skill Focus (Acrobatics) and thereby eliminate feat bloat? To my mind, the feat exists solely as a prerequisite for other feats -- which, IMHO, is also bad design.
+4 AC does not equate to no chance for failure.No, it doesn't, and I stand corrected. But a +4 makes the feat replace 4 ranks of the skill. Why? Why not just leave it as Skill Focus (Acrobatics) and thereby eliminate feat bloat? To my mind, the feat exists solely as a prerequisite for other feats -- which, IMHO, is also bad design.
Honestly, I am more worried about AC/to-hit/save inflation than feat bloat, but that is a topic for another time and place.
On topic (one of them) you could be right, esp now that the acrobatics DC is tied to CMD as opposed to a flat DC.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to choose:
Quick draw- The higher your level the faster you pull out your weapon.
Weapon finesse- Why is my str10/dex19 rogue is trying to use his rapier like a meat cleaver rather than a scalpel.
Rapid reload- see quick draw.
Power attack- This seems like something anyone with a str of 12 should be able to do with out any real training.
Eschew material- Most people just ignore this rule anyway.
+4 AC does not equate to no chance for failure.No, it doesn't, and I stand corrected. But a +4 makes the feat replace 4 ranks of the skill. Why? Why not just leave it as Skill Focus (Acrobatics) and thereby eliminate feat bloat? To my mind, the feat exists solely as a prerequisite for other feats -- which, IMHO, is also bad design.
I don't quite follow that logic.
+4 AC makes it harder to get hit on an AoO once you failed your acrobatics check.Acrobatics makes it so that the enemy doesn't get an AoO in the first place.
I don't see how +4 AC makes the acrobatics check even a tiny bit easier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
.
.
.
.
Eliminate as Feats:
- Antagonize: Should have simply updated those skills. If anything this feat should provide a bonus to specific uses, not add new ones.
- Heighten Spell: If a caster uses a higher-level slot to cast a lower-level spell, it should just work as a higher level spell. That's already enough of a sacrifice, requiring a feat for it is inane.
- Intimidating Prowess: Huge scary-looking guys with no social skills should be intimidating. I've house-ruled more than a few skills to use one of two different applicable abilities. Intimidate is one of them.
- Leadership: This should be the purview of the GM and something that is hand-crafted between the player and GM. At most I could see this giving a bonus on certain Charisma-based checks.
- Improved TWF: Agree with the comments about auto-scaling. About the only exception I could see is if you require TWF for the 1st off-hand attack and then Imp. TWF to gain any and all iterative off-hand attacks and increase the shield bonus of TWD to match the number of off-hand attacks you have.
- Vital Strike: This should just be folded into the core combat system. It would make the game more dynamic for sure. At the very least it should be no more than a single feat, not a whole chain.
- Weapon Finesse: Agree with the comments about this being applicable on a per-weapon basis. The only time I'd keep it as a feat is for learning to finesse a weapon that isn't normally finessable like a longsword or some such (see Exotic Weapon Proficiency).
Keep as Feats:
- Agile Maneuvers: As much as I love my lithe little bard, I have to admit that it's much easier for a big strong guy to be dominant in a wrestling contest than a tiny woman. To me, this feat represent the special martial arts training that evens the gap.
- Combat Expertise: It has its uses although it needs a bit of an overhaul. It should also be able to improve the benefits or decrease the penalties for fighting defensively IMO.
- Eschew Materials: If we give this away then you've just seriously eliminated some major fears that a mage might have of being stripped of their gear or grappled. No, this is a keeper and IMO is much more valuable than a trait. YMMV, but in a game with lots of grappling and casting in formal gowns, it's quite valuable.
- Exotic Weapon Proficiency: I'd keep it, but I'd also make it a bit more free-form. Rather than just picking a single weapon and you're done, I'd like to see it add the ability to perform exotic displays of prowess with normal weapons. i.e. Finessing a longsword, using the bits of your axe to trip, doing a rapid reload on your crossbow, etc. I'd also like to see it scale with level.
- Power Attack: It's a desirable enough feat for certain characters that I can see a reason to keep it around. I could see allowing a weaker 1:1 version for anyone and the feat improving it though.
Monkey Grip- Yes I know it was taken away in PF, but now there is no way to use differently scaled items. Though I miss Monkey Grip, I really hope it hasn't been brought back in UC or some other supplement, simply because penalties for using larger items should be a part of the item system, not a feat. I'm thinking minimum strength ratings per size larger than you or maybe scaling penalties to attack.
Lurker: This is from the Equipment chapter: Inappropriately Sized Weapons
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
Also UC has an archetype (Titan Mauler I think) that is based around wielding oversized weapons by decreasing these penalties.
Leadership.
+10
No good DM in his right mind would allow this.
Hellcat Stealth. Makes no sense considering the current stealth rules.
Leadership.+10
No good DM in his right mind would allow this.
I allow it. Actually, five of the seven players at my table have taken it. I encouraged them to. Are you saying I'm a bad DM? Are you saying I'm not in my right mind?
Just because you don't like it or because you aren't sure how to build encounters around it, doesn't make it a bad thing. I agree with some of the above posters about it not needing to be a feat, but rather an in-character thing (for the cohort/mercenary). All my players took it to basically get super animal companions (monstrous cohorts, mostly griffons). In this sense, it's like a non-caster version of Improved Familiar.
Leadership.+10
No good DM in his right mind would allow this.
I allow it. Actually, five of the seven players at my table have taken it. I encouraged them to. Are you saying I'm a bad DM? Are you saying I'm not in my right mind?
Just because you don't like it or because you aren't sure how to build encounters around it, doesn't make it a bad thing. I agree with some of the above posters about it not needing to be a feat, but rather an in-character thing (for the cohort/mercenary). All my players took it to basically get super animal companions (monstrous cohorts, mostly griffons). In this sense, it's like a non-caster version of Improved Familiar.
I like the leadership feat for followers (role play fodder) and superior mounts.
Leadership.+10
No good DM in his right mind would allow this.
I allow it. Actually, five of the seven players at my table have taken it. I encouraged them to. Are you saying I'm a bad DM? Are you saying I'm not in my right mind?
Just because you don't like it or because you aren't sure how to build encounters around it, doesn't make it a bad thing. I agree with some of the above posters about it not needing to be a feat, but rather an in-character thing (for the cohort/mercenary). All my players took it to basically get super animal companions (monstrous cohorts, mostly griffons). In this sense, it's like a non-caster version of Improved Familiar.
Where are my 163 companions and my cohort?!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leadership.+10
No good DM in his right mind would allow this.
I allow it. Actually, five of the seven players at my table have taken it. I encouraged them to. Are you saying I'm a bad DM? Are you saying I'm not in my right mind?
Just because you don't like it or because you aren't sure how to build encounters around it, doesn't make it a bad thing. I agree with some of the above posters about it not needing to be a feat, but rather an in-character thing (for the cohort/mercenary). All my players took it to basically get super animal companions (monstrous cohorts, mostly griffons). In this sense, it's like a non-caster version of Improved Familiar.
I also allow it, always have, and with no additional restrictions. If a player wants it they can take it and they get to build their own cohort. I guess I must be a terrible Dungeon Master.
I think that high level characters should be able to recuit people to their cause with ease and, while I do try to making it a Roleplaying based advancement, I find the feat is a simple way to represent that.
In all my time as a Dungeon Master I've only had one time where Leadership was a problem and it was because the player was a problem, not the feat. It annoys me when people blame a feat or rule for the abuses of players and Dungeon Masters.
I won't be original with my opinons much:
Weapon Finesse[/i] yes, I already houseruled that into finesse trait of all light and some one-handed weapons - after a few more sessions I could say more but currently I am glad of that choice.
[b]Power Attack, Combat Expertise basic possibility of reducing hit chance for bonus to damage/AC should be built in in combat system and those feats should just improve the conversion ration or gain other benefits while using such options. I think that 1st edition of Everquest d20 tried to do something like that but I don't know how it actually worked.
Weapon Proficiences, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization should be working on weapon groups instead of specific weapons, at least. No more burning feat for a single weapon type.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency they could remain feats related to single weapons if those weapons were more efficient.
One of my random thoughts - there could be option of buying specific weapon proficiences with traits/skill points to save those precious feats.
Vital Strike scaling would be good, I thought about giving everyone benefits of Vital Strike chain and removing iterrative attacks but finally resigned to save myself testing it and tweaking with it. Still if it could be considered in five to ten years that divide us from Pathfinder 2nd edition ;)
Eshew Materials I would keep but I would like to see it expanded - giving possibility to sacrifice some renewable but limited resource as a substitute of costly components in severe circumstances (like ability damage/drain or permanent negative levels - removing them would be costly but could be done with money received afterwards).
Two Weapon Fighting scalling seems to be a sensible option.
Leadership interests me mostly as a way of obtaining cohort/mount/familiar substitute within minions... er followers being kept in reserve as servants in my not so secret base of operations for lower cost and greater loyalty than regular hirelings.
Heighten Spell should be just regular spellcasting option instead of a separate feat.
Where are my 163 companions and my cohort?!Leadership.+10
No good DM in his right mind would allow this.
I allow it. Actually, five of the seven players at my table have taken it. I encouraged them to. Are you saying I'm a bad DM? Are you saying I'm not in my right mind?
Just because you don't like it or because you aren't sure how to build encounters around it, doesn't make it a bad thing. I agree with some of the above posters about it not needing to be a feat, but rather an in-character thing (for the cohort/mercenary). All my players took it to basically get super animal companions (monstrous cohorts, mostly griffons). In this sense, it's like a non-caster version of Improved Familiar.
Each of the players has either a town, barony, mage-tower or guild that they run. All of their followers populate those areas. We use the same characters over the course of several adventures (we've been playing with these for almost two years now), with lots of between-adventures down time. These followers are used for various non-adventure tasks, like building moats or collecting mundane equipment or doing non-specialized research. The guy with the barony uses them to man his keep, as servants, guards, courtiers and such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take on Weapon Finesse: make Finesse a weapon quality which permits, or possibly even requires you to use Dex for to hit rolls with it. Then, the feat (possibly renamed Weapon Precision), allows you to add either Int or Dex (I haven't settled on which) as a precision-based bonus to damage with the weapon.
|
I don't think Vital Strike right now needs to be an auto-scaling feat anymore. Especially since the Titan Mauler has been made available.
Because it is of little utility to most builds doesn't make the feats less frightful, especially when the guy you are facing is an enlarged, lead bladed-oversized-bastard-sword wielder.
And since I believe Titan mauler allows to wield even more crazy weapons, you just have to look the damage you would do with only one strike of a Large Fauchard or Curve blade on an enlarged character. 20 strength, PA. 3d8+14 base damage gives a base 6d8+14 damage at level 6 just from one strike, easily 9d8+28 1/4 of the time if the weapon is keen. It's an average of 41 damage, or 68,5 with a critical hit at a level where the average HP of a raging barbarian with 16 Con is 86,5 HPs.
It has it's uses, and making it scale would benefit a bit too much to monsters and builds specifically created around a high-base damage weapon.
|
|
The thread premise was left deliberately vague. What I had in mind was things that ought to be generic mechanics rather than feats. Beyond that, some things just make very poor, imbalanced, or silly feats.
This being a matter of opinion, I hardly expect consensus on all points... but Leadership seems to me to be the best example of something that is a feat but really shouldn't be. It is way overpowered for a single feat, it lends itself to abuse, it isn't as fully explained as it ought to be, and it encompasses a concept that could be handled with the Diplomacy skill and a shrewd investment of coin.
But it's a feat. It was made so when the game was young, and the notion of feats was still being explored. I think it was sort of a failed experiment then, and it boggles my mind to think it made the leap from the DMG to the CRB as a no-strings-attached, fully available basic feat.
I agree that leadership is overpowered, but I also kind of understand what the intention of the feat is and would have a hard time accomplishing the goal of the leadership in another way.
People want and love cohorts. Batman wants his Robin, but generally everyone wants to be Batman.
As to the rest...the vague nature of the OP is bring in a lot of...let's just say "stuff".
I think most of the feats people want to get rid of, they want to get rid of so they can have them for free.
Which I have an issue with, since it changes balance.
I wish it had been more of a "get rid of" thread, as I don't think there would be as much "stuff" floating around the bowl.
|
Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers, definitely.
I'd keep Power Attack and Combat Expertise as Feats, but give them for free to Fighters. (Ideally, Fighters would have some sort of class-based AC and damage bonus, as well, and be able to swap those for bonuses to hit, like 'Reckless Attack' (-AC bonus / +atk bonus) or whatnot, but that ship has sailed.)
Heighten Spell is redundant. You should just be able to prepare spells in higher level slots (or burn higher level slots, for a spontaneous caster), if you want. If there's to be a Heighten Spell feat, it should have some extra effect, like allowing a Metamagiced spell to count as a spell of its new level for DC purposes, or allowing a spell cast from a higher level spell slot to be cast at +2 effective caster level / spell slot above the original slot or something.
Any Exotic Weapon Proficiency that doesn't provide any real advantage, such as some of the 'exotic' weapons that are just Asian-looking versions of normal weapons.
The thread premise was left deliberately vague. What I had in mind was things that ought to be generic mechanics rather than feats. Beyond that, some things just make very poor, imbalanced, or silly feats.
This being a matter of opinion, I hardly expect consensus on all points... but Leadership seems to me to be the best example of something that is a feat but really shouldn't be. It is way overpowered for a single feat, it lends itself to abuse, it isn't as fully explained as it ought to be, and it encompasses a concept that could be handled with the Diplomacy skill and a shrewd investment of coin.
But it's a feat. It was made so when the game was young, and the notion of feats was still being explored. I think it was sort of a failed experiment then, and it boggles my mind to think it made the leap from the DMG to the CRB as a no-strings-attached, fully available basic feat.
I agree that leadership is overpowered, but I also kind of understand what the intention of the feat is and would have a hard time accomplishing the goal of the leadership in another way.
People want and love cohorts. Batman wants his Robin, but generally everyone wants to be Batman.
As to the rest...the vague nature of the OP is bring in a lot of...let's just say "stuff".
I think most of the feats people want to get rid of, they want to get rid of so they can have them for free.
Which I have an issue with, since it changes balance.
I wish it had been more of a "get rid of" thread, as I don't think there would be as much "stuff" floating around the bowl.
I played with a guy who was a serious power gamer, he agreed that if you let the PC create and control all aspects of their cohort, it was broken, but if the GM does what he needs to (takes control from time to time, saying the cohort wouldn't do that, and make the cohort with the players input) it was balanced. Also, this guy new he was powergaming and new how to "shut it off".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leadership isn't an overpowered feat. It's a universal feature of reaching 7th level that you can give up in exchange for a feat. It's just written as if it were a feat in order to make the description of feat progression look consistent instead of having a strange skipped level.
For things that haven't been mentioned yet ...
* Dazzling Display is broken and just needs to go. Maybe it could be retooled with a DC = 10 + 1/2 HD + CHA.
* Two-weapon Fighting shouldn't even be a feat. It should just be a game mechanic like two-handed fighting is. The -2 is enough penalty.
* Charging shouldn't give you +2 to hit. It should give you the Vital Strike feat effects.
Each of the players has either a town, barony, mage-tower or guild that they run. All of their followers populate those areas. We use the same characters over the course of several adventures (we've been playing with these for almost two years now), with lots of between-adventures down time. These followers are used for various non-adventure tasks, like building moats or collecting mundane equipment or doing non-specialized research. The guy with the barony uses them to man his keep, as servants, guards, courtiers and such.
All of this is awesome, but I feel it would be better served in play as something other than a Feat. Hence the thread.
I love the themes of leadership, and particularly the throwback to earlier editions. But a Feat? I feel like the page space dedicated to the leadership feat would have been better served toward an expanded Diplomacy skill section. Maybe something including hirelings and the benefits of having a fortress and personal standard.
i don't beleive leadership should be a feat.
i beleive that the followers should be a basic function of charisma itself.
and i beleive that if a player honestly wanted a 2nd PC for a concept based reason. that they should be able to ask the DM (and the group) and have thier concept considered rather than automatically rejected.