What's your take on the Leadership feat?

[Kerrick]

In the 6 or so years I've been playing 3E, I've never used it or seen it used in play, and I don't recall ever seeing it even discussed anywhere on the various forums I visit. Does anyone use it? Is it overpowered, underpowered, just plain useless, too much of a headache for the DM, or one of those feats that's just right and no one has any fault with it?

 

[Nifft]

The single most powerful feat in any book ever.

I use it, all the PCs in my game have taken it, and we like it despite its phenomenal power.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dog Moon]

Well, it can be a pain in the butt if the DM allows it do be so. Example: Having a group of six players and allowing them all to take Leadership. However, in our group, at least, we use it to fill in the minor roles that no one else had taken. Like if we have two fighters, a mage, and a rangers, eventually, we'll be like 'crap, need a healer. and possibly a rogue.' So what happens is that someone gets a cohort which becomes a healer, rogue, or sometimes both.

HOWEVER, what we've started in my group is that you can take Leadership, but you can only grab an ally or someone who looks up to you. [sounds like it could be annoying, but if someone wants to take leadership, they tell me a class or basic concept, and I'll work within the next couple of gaming sessions to add in an interesting character they will wish to have as a cohort. Sometimes this is obvious and other times not quite so much]. No one has complained much in my campaign. The choices so far were: an archivist love interest, a glass figurine rogue/cleric [odd how that came about, but it did], and a Modron favored soul.

 

[Jack Simth]

In the 6 or so years I've been playing 3E, I've never used it or seen it used in play, and I don't recall ever seeing it even discussed anywhere on the various forums I visit. Does anyone use it? Is it overpowered, underpowered, just plain useless, too much of a headache for the DM, or one of those feats that's just right and no one has any fault with it?

Consider, for a moment, a Wizard takes it to get a Wizard cohort. The Cohort can now take the crafting feats, while the PC takes metamagic. PC provides spells, caster level, gp, and XP, while the Cohort provides item creation feats - they collaberate. One feat replicates a fair number more, AND has other uses (like both wizards taking different spells at level up, and sharing their spellbooks with each other, or casting more spells each round).

There's a reason the feat says check with the DM.

It's useful when the party is lacking a dull role - a heal-bot cleric cohort is handy, as is a buff-based Bard. A trapsmith rogue, likewise. It's amazingly abusable, though, even when you just give the DM a class and concept (crafting Wizard, for instance).

 

[Corsair]

And this is why it's in the DMG, not the PHB. I personally have used it before in the past, as have other people in games I've played in. The one thing to watch out for is when a player ends up hogging a lot of game time. For example, in one game I'm in, there is a player who tends to be a bit slower in combat... who took leadership... to get a druid. Now this player has to run his own character, the druid, summoned creatures and an animal companion.

Yikes.


Also note that there is a spectrum between one extreme (giving the player total free reign) and the other (disallowing it completely). A middle ground would be the DM creating and running the cohort as an NPC (which he is), not a robot the player mindlessly controls. It seems most complaints about Leadership are in this category, where the player just uses the cohort as a path to more player power and spotlight, not as a roleplaying tool.

 

[Will]

I've used it/seen it used, and the problem is that it adds a LOT more complexity. I mean, if everyone takes it? That's twice the number of decisions everyone has to make. And many players in my circle take a long time to make decisions already.
We sort of made an informal agreement not to use it because of this issue.

If I were in a game with 2-3 players, though, I'd definitely consider it to help round out both abilities and power; power in that 2 or 3 people rolling is more subject to a run of bad rolls than 4-6.

 

[Quartz]

Something I've thought about but never tried is to use Leadership as a marker of the character's wealth or position. Instead of getting a cohort, the PC can expect so much support from his Order / Merchant Company / Liege / whatever. This would be at a lower level to reflect the increased utility.

E.g. Sir Redgar is a 12th level fighter and a Knight-captain of the Order of The Silver Flame with a leadership score of 10. He can roll up to the local Chapterhouse and expect the support of an 8th level NPC and lower-level flunkies to hold the horses.

 

[Corsair]

Something I've thought about but never tried is to use Leadership as a marker of the character's wealth or position. Instead of getting a cohort, the PC can expect so much support from his Order / Merchant Company / Liege / whatever. This would be at a lower level to reflect the increased utility.

E.g. Sir Redgar is a 12th level fighter and a Knight-captain of the Order of The Silver Flame with a leadership score of 10. He can roll up to the local Chapterhouse and expect the support of an 8th level NPC and lower-level flunkies to hold the horses.

I question whether a feat is needed for this.

The main thing about Leadership is that by making it part of the character, it somewhat immunizes the cohort from being monkeyed around with by a DM (the kind of DM that has every NPC turn out to be a double-crossing doppleganger... you know the kind I mean). But really if someone's character is already a rising member of an order, church, or other organization, taking the feat shouldn't be needed to represent that.

 

[monboesen]

I would only allow Leadership as written in small games (2-3 PC's). As actions are the most valuable resource in D&D, that feat alone nearly doubles a PC's power and impact on the game. At the same time it also slows down the game for everybody.

I have on occasions let players have it in larger games (6 PC's), with the stipulation that the cohort was a horse or another animal/beast/magical beast (possibly gaining templates and extra HD to increase its power). For example a fighter in one game had a celestial heavy warhorse cohort with 3-4 extra HD instead of a 7th level cohort.

 

[Artoomis]

The potential for an abusive amount of power comes when a DM allows thr player to make up the cohort.

In my opinion, it is far batter to have the PC take the feat and then let it be know what sort of cohort they seek, then the DM lets them know what they actually find- which will not be exactly what is sought.

Further, I think it works better if the player has the cohort loyalty's, but the DM actually decides actions with that loyalyty in mind - in other words, the player does not get a second PC.

Run this way, it can be reasonable, but it's extra work for the DM.