| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lemme know what you think of this...
Leadership is avoided by most game tables because it it cheesy.
If one person has leadership in the party, they almost always have unfair advantage.
That said, I suggest GMs strike Leadership from the feat roster, and instead harken back to the spirit of Gygaxian AD&D; make Leadership an optional campaign choice in once of two ways:
1 - Oligarchy
2 - Band of Lords
Oligarchy
At some point, the entire party is recognized as great, and people gather around them or adopt them as their master. Run it like one Leadership feat shared among the party. Think "Lion Witch and Wardrobe" where everyone in the party is part of an elite class of leaders. The cohort is the party's rep or magistrate who runs things while they're away on adventures, or represents the party's interests when they're holding court. The cohort doesn't come along on adventures, but their stats are critical in the case of a defend-the-fort situation. Plus they could be an item crafter or diplomat, which helps illustrate the party's gains in terms of wealth or influence over time.
Band of Lords
Each party member effectively has Leadership at a certain point (a certain level, or the consequence of a certain event). They could then pool all these followers and cohorts, or separate them out. One good way to allocate cohorts and followers is to have each PC lead a different part of society - one is the military general, one is in charge of a secret society of spies for the king, one is the political leader, and another runs a magic university, and another the city's temple. The classes of cohorts and followers are chosen around these roles.
No matter the distribution choice, the Cohort and followers are 100% loyal and trustworthy, dedicating themselves to the party. Their full time job is to make the party's dreams come true by pooling wealth and abilities.
A GM can have the cohort(s) and followers be the sum total of the PCs' people-resources, or can simply be the ones who form the core of the society which the party is responsible for. This means the kingdom or army or church can be of any size, but has a minimum population as determined by the table under the Leadership feat. If the army gets wiped out, followers slowly gather from near and far to repopulate the ranks (with the appropriate modifiers such as "allowed 50% of followers died", listed in the feat itself).
Lemme know what you think of this...
Leadership is avoided by most game tables because it it cheesy.
If one person has leadership in the party, they almost always have unfair advantage.That said, I suggest GMs strike Leadership from the feat roster, and instead harken back to the spirit of Gygaxian AD&D; make Leadership an optional campaign choice in once of two ways:
1 - Oligarchy
2 - Band of LordsOligarchy
At some point, the entire party is recognized as great, and people gather around them or adopt them as their master. Run it like one Leadership feat shared among the party. Think "Lion Witch and Wardrobe" where everyone in the party is part of an elite class of leaders. The cohort is the party's rep or magistrate who runs things while they're away on adventures, or represents the party's interests when they're holding court. The cohort doesn't come along on adventures, but their stats are critical in the case of a defend-the-fort situation. Plus they could be an item crafter or diplomat, which helps illustrate the party's gains in terms of wealth or influence over time.Band of Lords
Each party member effectively has Leadership at a certain point (a certain level, or the consequence of a certain event). They could then pool all these followers and cohorts, or separate them out. One good way to allocate cohorts and followers is to have each PC lead a different part of society - one is the military general, one is in charge of a secret society of spies for the king, one is the political leader, and another runs a magic university, and another the city's temple. The classes of cohorts and followers are chosen around these roles.No matter the distribution choice, the Cohort and followers are 100% loyal and trustworthy, dedicating themselves to the party. Their full time job is to make the party's dreams come true by pooling wealth and abilities.
A GM can have the cohort(s) and followers be the sum total of the PCs' people-resources, or can simply be the ones who form...
I might want to say that the oligarchy variation seems to lean heavily on the use of a DMPC in it's wording, though each person gaining a Cohort could be good, especially in groups where you're expecting a low chance of resurrection, a Cohort could be the player's next character, even a temporary stand-in at times for the player.
But even then Five Cohorts would be hard to manage, unless you're planning on the group of players having two sets of characters with each set going on separate adventures while traveling throughout the same quest, even having the groups blend from time to time with a bit of level variation.
I've played in many campaigns with essentially the 4e equivalent of this Oligarchy idea, it turned me off to it hardcore, My DM at the time would make a PC that noticeably forced us along his story and made all of the characters feel like their questing and great accomplishments went extraordinarily unnoticed. It killed 4e for myself and three other friends who wandered in that group.
I may recommend that the players are slowly amassing a large force though, maybe acting somewhat akin to rulers of the world with no cap on the growth of Leadership. so as the Oligarchy variation works, players will gain control of areas when they take out cult leaders of strength domains, save kingdoms or small villages, or simply help people. Each group that folds into the player oligarchy could have its own Cohort-esque leader and army massing could incur, with 1 tenth of the groups total experience at the end of a "Social event" being how many followers they have at any given time.
My emphasis was more that cohorts aren't active in the campaign, and 90% of the time are merely a vehicle in the background that provides a support base for the PCs. Like, after they come back from an adventure, the cohort hands them a sack of cash ("here are this month's taxes, milord"), a case of potions he brewed while they were away, and a list of problems and current events that the PCs could follow up on for further adventures (eg. "The people have been plagued by kidnappings" "The neighboring kingdom has changed hands, and sent an envoy here demanding tribute")
Put me down for "Campaign Option".
As a GM, I've always felt that the effects of the Leadership feat ought to be something that's brought about as a natural reaction of the gameworld to the characters' actions rather than merely selecting a feat. I feel the same about any boons that are essentially external to a character's own personal power (e.g. knighthood, being elected as a ruler, etc).
Regardless of my own feelings, I'd say it would be best for the party and GM to discuss the matter before introducing a slew of followers to the game. After all, even if no one is opposed to the shift this would bring about in the campaign, it does involve a lot of extra work and requires the GM (and potentially other players) to shift gears.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate and never use the leadership feat.
PCs and NPCs recruit and attract cohorts, henchmen and followers based upon their actions, fame and station.
Treat those cohorts well and you'll have a secure resource but abuse them and they might stab you in back at night and loot your corpse.
Dot.