Ever used Leadership?

[lamproswc]

Have you ever played in a game where one of the PCs had the Leadership feat? How did it work out? Is it a lot of extra power?

 

[robberbaron]

Not so much extra power as extra flexibility, at least in my game.

One character had a cohort cleric who was seen as more useful than the PC. They really missed her when the PC bought the farm.

Currently, I have 3 PCs with cohorts: a wizard with fighter bodyguard (doesn't add much to the party in power terms as he tends to guard rather than get stuck in), a wizard with a rogue cohort (hasn't really done much yet as there is a PC rogue) and a new wizard with cleric cohort (probably be the party utility heal/buff NPC, but maybe not).

The main thing is that they bump the party up to 11 (8PCs, 3 NPCs) which is a bit large. Combats tend to take a lot of time to get through and I have to increase the encounter level a lot to give reasonable challenges. I think the 'normal' challenge level is 1 or 2 above average party level. At least.
The cohorts count towards calculating EL but get no XPs - in practice, their level is limited to the max. level given in the Leadership table rather than (PC level - 2) - and have NPC wealth.

So, in summary, having PCs with Leadership doesn't necessarily lead to much extra power unless the DM lets the player take the p*ss. Personally, I'd limit cohorts to core classes, but that's just me.
It does mean that PCs may not have to be utility characters, which should keep them happy.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've run games with cohorts allowed, and played in games with cohorts, and never seen a problem with it. It often lends quite a bit of extra colour to the game too.

One thing that I've seen done that worked quite nicely was to have the cohort as the 'backup character', so that if the main PC dies, the player has (a) got someone to continue playing with in the adventure, (b) has a ready made party member that can be 'bumped' to the appropriate level (often they are two levels lower than the PC, and a replacement would be one level lower) and fit right it - after all, they have already been adventuring with the party for yonks.

Like Robberbaron says, it adds to complexity of fights (especially if there are lots of them), but are OK as longer as players aren't attempting to egregariously game the system with them.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

Just thinking - a bard could be quite a good cohort, especially for combat types. There is a nice precedent for heroes to have followers who write of their deeds and compose songs for them - and an ally who hangs back and inspires you all could be rather effective in a "back seat" sort of way - the most common mode for bards, and one which is often seen as a complaint about the class.

Cheers

 

[moritheil]

I've run games with cohorts allowed, and played in games with cohorts, and never seen a problem with it. It often lends quite a bit of extra colour to the game too.

One thing that I've seen done that worked quite nicely was to have the cohort as the 'backup character', so that if the main PC dies, the player has (a) got someone to continue playing with in the adventure, (b) has a ready made party member that can be 'bumped' to the appropriate level (often they are two levels lower than the PC, and a replacement would be one level lower) and fit right it - after all, they have already been adventuring with the party for yonks.

Agree; it's very nice to be able to point to a cohort and say, "Here's a character you yourself created; want to run with that for the remainder of the session rather than twiddling your thumbs?"

Like Robberbaron says, it adds to complexity of fights (especially if there are lots of them), but are OK as longer as players aren't attempting to egregariously game the system with them.

Cheers

I had 14 players in my campaign once, and at one point there was a sudden spate of people taking the leadership feat. (Thankfully, most of them didn't want any followers, or didn't want to bring followers with them.) The additional complexity of fights is definitely something you may want to think over.

 

[Stalker0]

The leadership feat can be a complete waste of paper, or the most powerful feat in the game, depending on how you play it.

Its especially useful when your party is small as it can fill out important niches. But in bigger games I find it can cause party bloat, leading to npcs taking too much character time.

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

With a large group, the leadership feat can be unworkable.

Once the PC's and their cohorts start exceeding a full dozen, combat can get problematic. There are just too many characters on the field.

If your gaming group ranges 4-6 Players... you shouldn't have any problems with it - especially if you treat the cohort as a "backup PC".

 

[SteelDraco]

I've had a few PCs in my games with cohorts. Usually they either served as a bodyguard or a healer, and didn't cause much in the way of problems. Often, they were a source of great entertainment or plot hooks. As long as the group doesn't get too big, I think it's a great feat.

A corollary question - to what extent do DMs let the player design their cohort? Are they a mini-PC, or does the DM do all the work?

 

[moritheil]

A corollary question - to what extent do DMs let the player design their cohort? Are they a mini-PC, or does the DM do all the work?

The player does all the work; the DM does reality checking. ("No, your cohort cannot be the former cohort of Pun-Pun who was left behind when he ascended and consequently has divine rank 0.")

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I've used and still use Leadership but I only use the game mechanics as a guide. I don't worry too much about how many cohorts/followers are attracted unless it becomes a problem.