Why do PCs Need Leadership when Monster's Don't?

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I was thinking about this the other day. If a PC wants followers or minions, he/she needs to take the Leadership feat. But in pretty much every monster encounter that involves a leader and a bunch of thuggies (e.g. an orc leader and his warband), the Leadership feat is nowhere to be seen. In fact, I can't ever recall seeing anyone but a PC taking the Leadership feat.

Does this seem strange to you?

 

[moritheil]

I was thinking about this the other day. If a PC wants followers or minions, he/she needs to take the Leadership feat. But in pretty much every monster encounter that involves a leader and a bunch of thuggies (e.g. an orc leader and his warband), the Leadership feat is nowhere to be seen. In fact, I can't ever recall seeing anyone but a PC taking the Leadership feat.

Does this seem strange to you?

1. I have seen NPCs with Leadership.

2. The PCs have each other, and that doesn't come from leadership, now does it? You could argue that the NPCs are just the DM's (heavily unequal) party.

 

[Crothian]

PCs and NPCs use different rules, and have different expectations. So, no it does not seem strange.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

These two threads could probably be merged, perhaps improving both dicussions:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=2473421#post2473421

 

[Azul]

As both a player and a DM, I utterly loathe the Leadership feat as it is written. I like the concept of a Leadership feat (a feat that makes the character a more compelling leader, perhaps granting some bonuses to Charisma-related activities and/or allowing the character to rally the troops). I hate the "take this feat and gain a sidekick and followers" feat and have banned it from all my games. Acquiring loyal followers should be the result of the characters actions (i.e. roleplaying result), not of a character build. Cohorts and followers aren't a bonus to an ability or a new twist on what a character can do.

The current Leadership feat creates new in-character relationships between the character and NPCs. That is so fundamentally different from the clear "game mechanics" oriented nature of other feats and so strongly denatures the whole challenge of roleplaying a character becoming a strong leader that I feel it actually hurts the game.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

The PCs have each other, and that doesn't come from leadership, now does it?

But the PCs don't usually have to answer to each other either. Or, at least, not as much as cohorts/followers usually do. Cohorts are often played as assets to be managed by the PC, whereas other players aren't.

 

[dcollins]

If a PC wants followers or minions, he/she needs to take the Leadership feat.

PCs can just pay for hirelings (such as mercenaries; see DMG Ch. 5). PCs can make short-term associations with particular NPCs (see lots of published adventures). The Leadership feat is specific for permanent, totally devoted henchman run by the same player.

NPC (monster) groups might include a mix of any of the above.

 

[frankthedm]

NPCs you face [bosses and schlubs] are worth XP usually. An NPC can take leadership[FEAT] and gain cohorts and followers that DON'T give PCs XP because they come from a feat the foe had. [just like how someone with improved crit is not worth extra XP because he had "that" feat.]

 

[Klaus]

PCs and NPCs have different life expecatancies. That is why a Hound Archon is CR 6 if he's a NPC and ECL 11 if he's a PC.

Monsters go around together by DM fiat. If players want that kind of entourage, they'd better pay up for it.

 

[moritheil]

But the PCs don't usually have to answer to each other either. Or, at least, not as much as cohorts/followers usually do. Cohorts are often played as assets to be managed by the PC, whereas other players aren't.

Are you implying that the NPCs in your campaign never have to answer to each other? I thought that minions stereotypically served the BBEG *because* they had to answer to him otherwise (i.e. be killed by him, or something unpleasant.)