limits on leadership?

[krupintupple]

would you, as a DM limit the number of times that a group could take the 'leadership' feat?

i currently game a group of 4, and two have already taken it. the other two are one level behind the others due to death and i'm wondering if they may also take it - would you limit this manner of thing, or welcome it?

frankly, i'm undecided and could go either way. your thoughts, sages of enworld?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Like everything else, the DM has total control over the leadership feat. Especially the leadership feat, since all details about it are in the DMG.

I try to limit party size if possible, and generally only allow Leadership to be used to fill a hole (like no one wanting to play a healer). In my current game, one of the players is a Warchanter who has wet dreams of leading entire armies in combat, so the player has pressed me hard about allowing it, even though I specifically said I wanted their party to remain small (and they got to play gestalt instead). I may allow it since his character is so heavily based on leading others (his other gestalt half gives him White Raven maneuvers), but in general I try to avoid situations where the players need the feat.

 

[Alzrius]

In my mind, the problem with the Leadership feat isn't the cohort that it grants - a player basically uses this as a backup PC, which isn't that hard to deal with; it's the followers that are a problem.

The character's followers are so low-level that they're basically a huge liability. They're either getting slaughtered by whatever monsters attack the party, or the PC is using them in an unbalancing manner, such as having all of them make Craft checks to produce items he wants, or Spot checks to be alert for threats, etc.

I usually make the feat grant only a cohort, and no followers.

 

[starwed]

The character's followers are so low-level that they're basically a huge liability. They're either getting slaughtered by whatever monsters attack the party, or the PC is using them in an unbalancing manner, such as having all of them make Craft checks to produce items he wants, or Spot checks to be alert for threats, etc.

Wait, do some PCs actually try to take their followers on adventures? I always got the impression that the followers were supposed to represent the "in-town" part of leadership, giving you people to run errands and wield political power with, etc...

 

[Nebten]

I think 2 with Leadership would be enough. It starts to bog down the game when people are running 2 characters at a table. This will also cut into everybody's XP as well. I don't know if you have a time table as to where you want each PC's level to be at with your story development.

Besides, the other characters being only 1 level behind everybody else isn't that big of a deal. That gap will close with level progression.

 

[aboyd]

would you, as a DM limit the number of times that a group could take the 'leadership' feat?

In my games I limit it per player -- no player can take it twice, and I sometimes block cascades where the cohorts then take it as well. However, I would never limit it at a group level (for example, announcing that only 1 or 2 people out of the group can take Leadership, and the rest are outta luck). That's not good. That's going to lead to a player (or two, or three) resenting the other players that got away with it, and they will feel that the DM is being unfair or favoring certain players. I do not feel that the DM can explain that away or "verbally massage" the players into feeling good about the imbalance, so it's just a 100% doomed path IMHO. It ends with bad things happening as players get passive-aggressive or find other ways to act out against the perceived unfairness.

This will also cut into everybody's XP as well.

True, but I think only for the cohort, right? Followers don't gain XP.

 

[frankthedm]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/225781-whats-your-take-leadership-feat.html

The character can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of a character’s Leadership score, he can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than himself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level. A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment. The cohort’s alignment may not be opposed to the leader’s alignment on either the law-vs-chaos or good-vs-evil axis, and the leader takes a Leadership penalty if he recruits a cohort of an alignment different from his own.

The key word is "try." The character is supposed to try and get what he/she wants, but, in the end, you get what you gete. Where this gets broken is when a DM lets the player roll up whatever he/she wants for a cohort.

Indeed. The selectable parameters are race, class and alignment, not spells, domains, skills, feats and gear. The NPCs should be competent, but cherry picked splat should not be on the menu.

 

[aboyd]

The character's followers are so low-level that they're basically a huge liability. They're either getting slaughtered by whatever monsters attack the party, or the PC is using them in an unbalancing manner, such as having all of them make Craft checks to produce items he wants, or Spot checks to be alert for threats, etc.

Wait, do some PCs actually try to take their followers on adventures? I always got the impression that the followers were supposed to represent the "in-town" part of leadership, giving you people to run errands and wield political power with, etc...

Yes, exactly. Aren't the followers usually NPC classes with the commoner (not even elite) stats array? That means their best stat is something like a 13. These NPCs would suck at anything combat-oriented.

I have 3 followers, level 1 experts, and they are all maxed out for Craft: Alchemy. Assuming a standard distribution of d20 rolls (1 to 20 in fairly even amounts), the three of them "churn out" a whopping 2 flasks of Alchemist's Fire a week. A week! Of course that's an average. When they roll well, they get one out the door every 2 days. But when they roll badly, it's a lost week, no progress.

Even at the end of a year, that's a mere 104 flasks of Alchemist's Fire. This is barely useful to any campaign of mid-level characters (who could have the Leadership feat) and since the flasks come so slowly, it has a negligible affect on the immediate adventures.

It's flavor not some unbalanced outrageous thing... unless the DM is not following the rules/advice in the DMG.

The followers are meant to be spies, advisers, etc. Think majordomo, steward, runner, mole, and so on. They might populate a stronghold. They might craft incredibly low-level stuff (nearly useless except in dire situations). They might be used by the DM for a plot hook.

For example, at one point our group had taken on a stable-boy who worked for the militia. He gave us tons of information about what they discussed, what was troubling the town and surrounding lands, etc. He was in no way suited for any combat. He no levels in a PC class. But he was waaaaaaaaaayyyyy useful.

 

[Runestar]

3.5s' leadership feat does not come out and say explicitly that your followers are of the npc classes, just that they are typically low lv npcs (which is not necessarily synonymous with taking lvs in an npc class).

So you could theoretically have tons of low lv warlocks sniping alongside you. That is assuming they all survive the first chain lightning that comes hurling your way....the enemy does not even have to try to massacre them...

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, exactly. Aren't the followers usually NPC classes with the commoner (not even elite) stats array? That means their best stat is something like a 13. These NPCs would suck at anything combat-oriented.

I have 3 followers, level 1 experts, and they are all maxed out for Craft: Alchemy. Assuming a standard distribution of d20 rolls (1 to 20 in fairly even amounts), the three of them "churn out" a whopping 2 flasks of Alchemist's Fire a week. A week! Of course that's an average. When they roll well, they get one out the door every 2 days. But when they roll badly, it's a lost week, no progress.

Well, there's some problems there (beyond that fact that, as experts, they shouldn't be able to make alchemist's fire at all, since crafting that item requires that you be a spellcaster).

As Runestar noted, there's nothing in the Leadership description saying that your characters have the non-elite array, or NPC class levels. So if your followers were three 1st-level wizards, with maximum ranks in Craft (alchemy), a 16 Intelligence (+3) bonus, and took the Skill Focus (Craft (alchemy)) feat, they'd have a +10 bonus to Craft (alchemy) checks.

Moreover, they don't need to take a "standard distribution" of rolls, since they can take 10 on a Craft check. Doing so means that they achieve a 20, which is the DC to create a flask of alchemist's fire - moreover, that result multiplied by the DC to create the item is 400; double the price of the item in silver pieces (200 sp), which means it'd take each follower just half-a-week to make one flask.

This doesn't seem like such a big deal, but there is potential for problems, particularly if the PC here is inclined to screw with game-world economics. After all, it just costs one-third of an item's listed price to craft it, and you can sell it for one-half the listed price, meaning you always turn a profit.

By itself, that's still not too big a deal, but now add in those mages selling spellcasting services (being 1st-level characters, they make 5 gp per 0-level spell and 10 gp per 1st-level spell), and that's more money coming in.

Again, that's pretty meaningless, but it's just an example of what can be done. There's a great article in the latest Knights of the Dinner Table (#146, I think) about maximizing character profit, and reselling is a big part of that. With several NPCs doing it for you, it can quickly get cumbersome for the DM.

My point is that (in my experience), followers are a burden - either for the DM (as they carry out myriad nickel and dime tasks) or the PC (babysitting them to keep them alive when the DM has a monster target them).