| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly with relatively few restrictions I've managed to make it work at my table.
Anyone else out there letting their players have leadership? Chime in why or why not.
Leadership isn't a problem if:
- you have a small group (2-3 players)
- nobody tries to maximize crafting with it
- nobody tries to daisy-chain leadership to get meta-cohorts
- all players are cool with the idea
in our group (DD3.5 era) we just let the leadership-possessing player design the NPC cohort using a standard stat array and standard NPC gold per level. Since nobody went overboard trying to optimize their cohort or pull any crafting shenanigans, it was just another warm body in the group, bringing total party size to 4 or 5.
If you have 5 or more players, I would say no cohorts unless a few guys are absent from a session. Too many PCs in a group slows down combat significantly, though the same would go for multiple animal companions or anything that has a viable combat role. Usually familiars are less problematic, though I've seen on these boards that some improved familiars are every bit as active as a full PC.
The OP's blog post seems reasonable, it sounds similar to my experience with leadership.
good stuff taking a couple pieces as suggestions and editing the post
I generally frown on leadership. It seems to me that all the positive aspects of this feat can be achieved through storytelling and role-play (having allies, friends, etc.) which leaves only the negative aspects, i.e. a whole character sheet of powers, class features and actions for the price of a single feat. If a player isn't trying to the weasel the system he doesn't need leadership, and if he is, you shouldn't allow it.
That said, I have on occasion had characters with leadership. The most recent example being in a Skull and Shackles campaign where I was the captain. My cohort was a ships officer and my followers were pirates slightly more powerful than our average crewman. It actually didn't do anything mechanical for me at all, since the cohort had been an allied NPC on our ship anyway and we left her on the ship when we went dungeon crawling, but it seemed flavorful for me to take leadership.
I agree with Dave that the very concept of leadership being a feat is flawed. In the old days, you'd just put up an ad in the local inn for a couple hundred gold and then interview mercenaries, with whom you would then negociate payment and loot shares. Why should you have to spend relativemy rare character development opportunities to get some NPC to be your loyal henchman? Much better to work it out through a game session and situational roleplay with the DM.
And a small group can be "cured" simply by using a DM NPC to fill out the PC roster. Even though I've used leadership successfully in the past, IMHO it needs to go the way of the dodo.
It reminds me of the old "stronghold" rules for when a fighter hit 10th level in 2nd Ed AD&D. There's a tradition to having something similar to the feat (and henchmen) in the game going back quite a stretch.
The value to having it official in the story in my eyes is basically to encourage back up characters briefed on the history from the jump. I also think having a squire is just a good look for say the Cavalier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Check out Alexander Augunas brilliant blog post about leadership where he advises granting leadership as a bonus feat on lvl 7 automatically but enforcing the recruitment part for cohorts and only taking one cohort max with the party. I love that this makes CHA much more useful and creates dependables thus rooting PCs in the setting more.
He also published the Leadership Handbook making the leadership score into a new ability score and integrating it with some other rules.
Legendary Games Ultimate Relationships might also be of interest.
wow that's quite similar to the ideas I presented except I generally do not give it out for free.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the feat was added to 3e specifically to give a quantifiable value (one feat) to the old fighter "Lord" ability to get followers and a keep, but opened up to all classes.
I've allowed Leadership in my home game, and two people took it. In the one case, the player and I agreed that I would run the cohort. In the other case, the player ran his cohort. The first one worked out really well and people seem to enjoy their RP interaction, the second one was just a healbot that occasionally buffed PCs in a fight and nobody was sad to see the character leave the party. The difference between the players was the reason one worked out better.
I am also in a campaign where at one point, everyone controlled or could summon one or more minions. I play a saurian shaman druid with a T-Rex animal companion and a gleeful predilection for summoning more dinosaurs, we had a sorcerer with Leadership, a Cavalier with Leadership, a Bard with Leadership, and a conjurer wizard. One round of combat took close to an hour.
In the future, I'll have to go case by case. I'm thinking righ tnow that I'll allow it once, but then once one PC has taken it, restrict it. I haven't really decided, but I've seen the good and the bad from it. I'll have to judge when it comes up.
I always loved the 2e or 1e followers rules. You got a bit more high level and potentially interesting followers though. At name level (around level 9 or 10) a fighter got loads of followers, a ranger only few but many interesting ones (a chance for a treant , falcons, wolves, maybe a pixie) and a thief a small but skilled cadre (up to level 8). The Complete Priest handbook had a nice system for priests followers.
Never had a problem allowing PCs to take the leadership feat - and one of my players did take it and maximized a crafting cohort (in this case, a mystic theurge). It really wasn't a problem. Unless you're giving out gobs of cash rather than magic items, the crafting feats mainly allow you to transform magic items from stuff they don't want into stuff they want. They'd sell the stuff they don't want for half price anyway, crafting for half price preserves a 1:1 exchange of value - the same rate they'd have if everything I put into treasure hoards was stuff they wanted.
Now, in this case, the PC did have his cohort making items not just for himself but also his other companions. If someone is selfishly keeping all the benefits to the cohort to himself, I think that could cause problem at the table. But that wasn't the case and I don't think any harm was being done to the campaign.
I allow (and encourage) leadership with small groups of 1-3 players.
If the group is mid-sized (4-5) I only allow it for experienced players (those that can keep things flowing), if the group is OK with it, and if the cohorts aren't being used for craft monkeys or making money.
If the group is large, or inexperienced, cohorts are not allowed, yet leadership can be used to gain followers if it is sensible. I also do not allow it if there is a player that has been known to abuse similar abilities. Oddly, this can also mean players that reward their cohort much more than their fellow PCs (I give my cohort half the loot I grabbed. What? Why split it with the rest of the party? They don't know we have it).
The key is the player with the leadership feat. Some people can be trusted with that kind of toy. Some people should be kept far from it.
I think giving it out for free to everyone is the key, but the PCs still have to work to get a cohort.
An important question is who will build and play the cohort. Even if you cede this to the player, the DM should have veto rights and may take over playing the cohort at times.
And also if cohorts can leave or even betray their masters under certain circumstances. The feat seems to suggest so.
If you surround the PCs with more NPCs like hirelings and staff you could switch roles with or without the PC knowing and a hireling can become a cohort for example.
I thought about throwing up a few 5-6th build examples but then vetoed that as being less valuable.
|
My one experience with the leadership feat was horrible.
I was playing an evangelist (not the archetype, or the prestige class, because they didn't exist back then) cleric of La Donna, the goddess of the winds in our homebrew. I wanted to convert people to La Donna's faith. The PCs all had their own gods, so I couldn't convert them.
I told the GM that I was taking the Leadership feat so that I could meet other followers as we traveled from city to city on our ship. My vision was that in most big cities, I would encounter a person or two that was one of my fellow followers of La Donna. A sort of contact in every town, with whom I could exchange news, and get connected with the local scene, maybe set up a religious service locally.
My GM agreed to it. But city after city, I never found another follower though I searched for hours. He would always roll and say, "Nope, no followers here. You find no one who has heard of you or your goddess." I asked if I had *any* followers. He replied cheerfully, "I'm sure that you have some followers *somewhere* but you haven't found them yet."
I *never* found them, and we played to level 16. I had wasted a feat on this. If I had taken leadership as the cohort, I could have at least had help in my fruitless search for followers...
My experience of the feat was so bad that I will never take it on any other character -- I felt burned from the experience.
Hmm
Leadership gives you both Cohort and followers.
|
When I open up the leadership feat to my players, usually I give them a selection of NPC stat arrays from the game or my stable of npcs. I find this keeps the leadership tied to the story and prevents munchkining the feat too much. Since most of these npcs are 4-7th level, they have options but don't break the party. I do allow the players to influence their development. IE if a wizard takes my Mage Hunter Ranger npc as a cohort, he may convince the Ranger to become a shadow dancer or inquisitor. I aim to have 60 percent influence on the cohort to keep them from being just another line on my initiative tracker.
Hmm that sounds like a GM that didn't want to say no but also didn't want to deal with the feat. Sorry to hear you got burned.
Player or GM I simply recommend having a discussion before taking/using.
I normally ban it as a DM as I want as much of the action as can be to be from the PCs and not their pets/NPCs.
I was considering allowing it for a PC in my last campaign who kept enslaving opponents as they went instead of killing them. That PC's death ended the train of thralls theme though.
AS a GM it's banned in all my games. That's actually the only power/feat/spell that is banned in my games.
No player ever tried to take it in other games though.
We just don't like what this feat tries to do. Our PC have friends, contacts, but we just roleplay them so the GM keeps control over them.
We don't even actually play PC of players who didn't show up, so we won't play "fake" mini-PC.
I've never really had any issues with this feat. If players want to play super-power heroes will all min-maxed abilities, I'm o.k. with it. I just want to know what challenge level they want in return. Some of my players just want to win savagely for good. Others want a struggle. As long as everyone has the same toys, I'm comfortable.
I ask players upfront if they intend to try to break the gold economy, and if so, we play the wish economy with a cap around 15k.
I do concur that the feat is wildly powerful, but in a world with 7th level primary casters, a level 5 npc stated master summoner is just another awesome tool.
I would suggest easy characters for new players; that's just common sense.
I can see how this feat could create weird player dynamics in a non-irl friends group and I would address them.
I struggle to understand the "focus on PC's, not pets or cohorts" attitude independent of player dynamics. I once played with a woman who played a druid with a wolf. She poured all her money and roleplay into the wolf, until it was pretty clear that a heroic wolf had a druid animal companion. Everyone loved it. Watching the wolf try to convince a local lord of a plan was priceless.
I view low levels as the really make or break point for characters. Death counts. Poison and disease are game enders. Almost everyone is always two hits from death. Because of this, I see feats like Power Attack as more practically powerful, despite Leadership being more absolutely powerful.
My one experience with the leadership feat was horrible.
I was playing an evangelist (not the archetype, or the prestige class, because they didn't exist back then) cleric of La Donna, the goddess of the winds in our homebrew. I wanted to convert people to La Donna's faith. The PCs all had their own gods, so I couldn't convert them.
I told the GM that I was taking the Leadership feat so that I could meet other followers as we traveled from city to city on our ship. My vision was that in most big cities, I would encounter a person or two that was one of my fellow followers of La Donna. A sort of contact in every town, with whom I could exchange news, and get connected with the local scene, maybe set up a religious service locally.
My GM agreed to it. But city after city, I never found another follower though I searched for hours. He would always roll and say, "Nope, no followers here. You find no one who has heard of you or your goddess." I asked if I had *any* followers. He replied cheerfully, "I'm sure that you have some followers *somewhere* but you haven't found them yet."
I *never* found them, and we played to level 16. I had wasted a feat on this. If I had taken leadership as the cohort, I could have at least had help in my fruitless search for followers...
My experience of the feat was so bad that I will never take it on any other character -- I felt burned from the experience.
Hmm
Sounds like that DM was being a jerk. I would have told him to either allow the use of the feat selected as originally requested or permit a switch out. Honestly your idea wasn't beyond the pale and it sounds like it would have been a great use of the feat with a bonus of being flavorful.
My one experience with the leadership feat was horrible.
I was playing an evangelist (not the archetype, or the prestige class, because they didn't exist back then) cleric of La Donna, the goddess of the winds in our homebrew. I wanted to convert people to La Donna's faith. The PCs all had their own gods, so I couldn't convert them.
I told the GM that I was taking the Leadership feat so that I could meet other followers as we traveled from city to city on our ship. My vision was that in most big cities, I would encounter a person or two that was one of my fellow followers of La Donna. A sort of contact in every town, with whom I could exchange news, and get connected with the local scene, maybe set up a religious service locally.
My GM agreed to it. But city after city, I never found another follower though I searched for hours. He would always roll and say, "Nope, no followers here. You find no one who has heard of you or your goddess." I asked if I had *any* followers. He replied cheerfully, "I'm sure that you have some followers *somewhere* but you haven't found them yet."
I *never* found them, and we played to level 16. I had wasted a feat on this. If I had taken leadership as the cohort, I could have at least had help in my fruitless search for followers...
My experience of the feat was so bad that I will never take it on any other character -- I felt burned from the experience.
Hmm
That's very definitely a failing of the GM, who didn't seem to understand how to create fun, and not of the feat.
Honestly with relatively few restrictions I've managed to make it work at my table.
Anyone else out there letting their players have leadership? Chime in why or why not.
I found your link to be most enlightening and even thought deepening for me. I for one do not find leadership to be an issue, and I am not one to over abuse or use this feat myself as a player. Honestly if a GM bans this feat it is cause they simply do not understand it case in point I have had GM's ban classes for similar reasons. Such as Thrallherd, or the Psion class that deal in constructs which I will admit I kinda abused on a certain GM due to him not taking my advice on Psionics but that was a while ago in 2nd Ed.
I find myself more restrained now a days in the concerns of force multiplying feats and classes. I do still enjoy the leadership feat as both a GM or a Player cause I have tempered my urges from my youth.
How to balance it? Give it to the enemies. Lol.
Honestly, if this is a problem, you have a problem player... and they will likely be a problem regardless of what feats you ban or hand out for free.
During Session Zero, I try to stress the time your turn takes compared to the time everyone is dedicating to be here each week... I will straight up tell you that if you are going to be an archer, summoner/animal companion, or TWF that you better start rolling in advance and have your turns planned out by the time initiative gets to you.
Your character choices don't get to take time away from other players at my table.
So, go ahead, take Leadership. Have an Animal Companion. Be an archer. Summon stuff. I don't care... you have the same amount of time as the big dumb fighter swinging their greatsword. You either get your stuff done, or you don't, the battle isn't going to wait for you to figure out your BS and sort through all your character sheets.
So, go ahead, take Leadership. Have an Animal Companion. Be an archer. Summon stuff. I don't care... you have the same amount of time as the big dumb fighter swinging their greatsword. You either get your stuff done, or you don't, the battle isn't going to wait for you to figure out your BS and sort through all your character sheets.
Since playtime is playtime, I assume this also applies to social interactions? The bard is given as much limelight as the big dumb with no talking skills. Or to exploration, the scout completes his reconnaissance tour in as much play time as the player of the big dumb takes to say « I wait for Shorty to get back.»
To prevent abuse is one thing, a good thing, to force apples and oranges on the same metric is another that ends up being potentially needlessly punitive.
- I play a character that summons, I sometimes give control of what I summon to the player of the big dumb to mitigate this -
I find things go much easier and enjoyable for everyone, players and Game Master, when we know we can make mistakes and not get our head bitten off for it. Meta-game issues, here hogging the mic, are not something that have their solutions in-game. Calling the actions of the character of one of your players to be B.S. isn't the most constructive.
My players self-regulate pretty well, and as soon as BAB+6 came up, the archer and the TWF started pre-rolling on their own. I had brought it up at Session Zero, and didn't even have to remind them.
The Druid, on the other hand, was told several times that I would come back to him for what he was doing with his AC... then I stopped saying/doing that. No, I'm not going to revisit your initiative order to see if you have figured out what you want your AC to do. Frankly, I don't give a $#!+ what Dwayne "the Roc" Johnson does this turn, or any other turn.
Figure out your BS (I don't really know what else to call it) in advance, or it's not happening. I sure as $#!+ am not going to hold up the encounter for "umm, duh, erm, I, uh...", it's not fair to everyone else at the table.
As for social interactions, they take as long as they need to. Everyone can talk and say as much as they want. There is no battle tempo to upkeep in casual conversation... no tension or sense of urgency that needs to be portrayed.
In the Skull & Shackles AO, my pirate not only has Leadership, but also Dynasty Founder. This gives me a cohort and 920 @ 1st, 92 @ 2nd, 46 @ 3rdh, 24 @ 4th, 12 @ 5th, 6 @ 6th, 4 @ 7th, and 2 @ 8th followers.
Most low level followers are spread out throughout the Shackles as informants, contacts, and so on. The higher level followers are more concentrated in the capitol, my ship, my secret base, or as independent captains. Nearly all followers action occurs in the background via email with the GM or as a quick roleplay when in a port. The independent captains would only actively participate in a fleet encounter, which runs by special rules anyway.
My cohort is different. He cannot be left behind to guard the ship because that would keep him from gaining experience. This is baked in to the Leadership feat. Likewise, animal companions will likely also be part of all the main action because they must. With familiars, they are easier because they tend to not take part of the action due to being targeted if they take actions. Undead minions don't need Leadership but can also take up game time. So do summons.
The trick is to make combat go quickly. This usually means pets, minions, and cohorts act on their boss' initiative. The player should have made nearly all decisions before their turn so that they can process it quickly.
We did not have issues with magic crafting because several PCs had crafting feats. The cohort crafting feats provided some duplication and some new. We also had a loot sink with our ships, so we did not wind up extra loaded with personal magic. Also, equipping cohorts also eats loot.
/cevah