Leadership (da feat) question
- Thread starter Femerus the Gnecro
- Start date
, I'll just go read it again
Lucius Foxhound
First Post
Ummm... what's a "munchie player?"
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
So we don't know if you can specify which class of follower you can gain. We also don't know if you can specify what skills that follower has. Finally, we don't know what the followers will do for you.
For instance, lets say you desire an Expert follower with lots of ranks in Alchemy to make Alchemist's Fire for you at cost. We have no idea if the Leadership feat will allow you to do this.
I'd be nice if WOTC did some further clarifications on the Leadership feat.
For instance, lets say you desire an Expert follower with lots of ranks in Alchemy to make Alchemist's Fire for you at cost. We have no idea if the Leadership feat will allow you to do this.
I'd be nice if WOTC did some further clarifications on the Leadership feat.
Mr Fidgit
First Post
Mistwell said:
i couldn't agree more. i'm surprised none of the splat books (especially S&F) covered this in more detail.
i do have to say, if i were running a game and a player with Leadership wanted to actively recruit an alchemist, i'd probably allow it. or maybe come up with a way to roll for it, like on the 'influencing NPC attitude' table.
Moonlion
First Post
Do away with the mechanic altogether
We're having this discussion in our group now and I've come to the conclusion that it would be easier to do away with the mechanic altogether.
Every NPC that accompanies the party should be there because they were hired or because of roleplaying reasons appropriate to the campaign. Here's why...
* Payment of cohorts is too tricky an issue. With the current rules, everyone at the table pays for one PC's choice of feat. If the NPC was a hireling that benefitted the entire party, then it makes more sense for the entire party to pay for it on the up-and-up rather than paying an individual PC extra treasure and magic items.
* However, if the whole party doesn't pay for the cohort, then maintenance (in magic items, etc.) for the cohort has to come out of the PC who took the feat--which unfairly burdens the PC and slows the PC's own progress for doing something that benefits the whole party (that being getting an extra hand to help the party). But, using that argument, shouldn't every PC get more shares based on the feats they choose? No, they shouldn't, which makes Leadership inherently unfair for the PC and the party at the same time.
* It prevents NPCs from joining the party for roleplaying reasons. A cohort couldn't join unless someone has the Leadeship feat--because if you let them join, that invalidates the Leadership feat and ignores the mechanic and if you do that, why have the feat and the rules in the first place? If an NPC joins the party because of the ongoing story, what happens later when a different PC takes the Leadership feat? Why should the second PC have to sacrifice an important feat slot to have something that already exists for free?
We're having this discussion in our group now and I've come to the conclusion that it would be easier to do away with the mechanic altogether.
Every NPC that accompanies the party should be there because they were hired or because of roleplaying reasons appropriate to the campaign. Here's why...
* Payment of cohorts is too tricky an issue. With the current rules, everyone at the table pays for one PC's choice of feat. If the NPC was a hireling that benefitted the entire party, then it makes more sense for the entire party to pay for it on the up-and-up rather than paying an individual PC extra treasure and magic items.
* However, if the whole party doesn't pay for the cohort, then maintenance (in magic items, etc.) for the cohort has to come out of the PC who took the feat--which unfairly burdens the PC and slows the PC's own progress for doing something that benefits the whole party (that being getting an extra hand to help the party). But, using that argument, shouldn't every PC get more shares based on the feats they choose? No, they shouldn't, which makes Leadership inherently unfair for the PC and the party at the same time.
* It prevents NPCs from joining the party for roleplaying reasons. A cohort couldn't join unless someone has the Leadeship feat--because if you let them join, that invalidates the Leadership feat and ignores the mechanic and if you do that, why have the feat and the rules in the first place? If an NPC joins the party because of the ongoing story, what happens later when a different PC takes the Leadership feat? Why should the second PC have to sacrifice an important feat slot to have something that already exists for free?
Moonlion
First Post
Forgot one more point:
* In situations where there are a variable number of players at the table every session, and having too many combatants makes things too difficult to manage, it's easier to tell a hireling to sit out the night's play than it is a cohort--because then a PC isn't being denied the benefit of a feat, which is pretty significant. Likewise, it's easier for an NPC to be at the session regardless of which player is at the table than it is to run a PC's cohort when the PC isn't present.
* In situations where there are a variable number of players at the table every session, and having too many combatants makes things too difficult to manage, it's easier to tell a hireling to sit out the night's play than it is a cohort--because then a PC isn't being denied the benefit of a feat, which is pretty significant. Likewise, it's easier for an NPC to be at the session regardless of which player is at the table than it is to run a PC's cohort when the PC isn't present.
Corlon
First Post
hmmm
valid points moonlion, but what I'd say is that (this is what I do, it's not stated in the rules
):
The leadership feat would the character to decide which cohorts he gets, including what skills they have (loosely, you can't choose to have EXACTLY so many ranks in something, but the character could have a person with high open lock and stuff), and it allows the character to be flexible with his followers (sorcerers are more fun when you have a defensive devotee (or whatever)).
Whereas getting them by roleplaying is purely the DMs decision on what they have and why they're with the party.
Some of my PCs hate the (unamed monk) and the rouge who kicks them in the balls (with quicker than the eye
), but unless they do something smart to get rid of em, they're stuck.
valid points moonlion, but what I'd say is that (this is what I do, it's not stated in the rules
):The leadership feat would the character to decide which cohorts he gets, including what skills they have (loosely, you can't choose to have EXACTLY so many ranks in something, but the character could have a person with high open lock and stuff), and it allows the character to be flexible with his followers (sorcerers are more fun when you have a defensive devotee (or whatever)).
Whereas getting them by roleplaying is purely the DMs decision on what they have and why they're with the party.
Some of my PCs hate the (unamed monk) and the rouge who kicks them in the balls (with quicker than the eye
), but unless they do something smart to get rid of em, they're stuck.
Last edited:
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Re: Do away with the mechanic altogether
The bit about loyal followers is key to this discussion. An NPC might join the group for his own reasons on a limited basis but, absent powerful magic, the PCs won't know for sure what those reasons are. Said NPC could be a traitor, spy or assassin. A cohort is known to be loyal. Also, a cohort joins the party on a more or less permanent basis. That's entirely different from the NPC who joins the party as long as the party's goals coincide with his/her own.
Well, that's one way to run it at least.
Moonlion said:
The bit about loyal followers is key to this discussion. An NPC might join the group for his own reasons on a limited basis but, absent powerful magic, the PCs won't know for sure what those reasons are. Said NPC could be a traitor, spy or assassin. A cohort is known to be loyal. Also, a cohort joins the party on a more or less permanent basis. That's entirely different from the NPC who joins the party as long as the party's goals coincide with his/her own.
Well, that's one way to run it at least.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
IOW - a cohort is just flat-out totally loyal. You may as well give them to the player and have the player run them - that's how loyal they are.
That's worth the feat.
If you play it as just another NPC joining the party, it's not worth the feat.
That's worth the feat.
If you play it as just another NPC joining the party, it's not worth the feat.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Cross-post:
Leadership Feat
I saw this on Monte Cook's site, and thought people here might be interested.
"Q: Monte, how did the 3E design team intend for the Leadership feat to be taken? Can it be taken multiple times to gain multiple cohorts? Do you use the Leadership feat in your games, and how is it used? Thanks!
A: Yes, you can take it multiple times and get multiple cohorts if you want. I've never seen anyone do that, but you could.
Three of the PCs in my game have leadership. It's actually pretty popular. One uses it to staff his fortress-like home, the other two used it to get "back-up companions." A fighter got a cleric to heal him and a paladin got a sagely wizard to do research and make magic items.
Monte"
Leadership Feat
I saw this on Monte Cook's site, and thought people here might be interested.
"Q: Monte, how did the 3E design team intend for the Leadership feat to be taken? Can it be taken multiple times to gain multiple cohorts? Do you use the Leadership feat in your games, and how is it used? Thanks!
A: Yes, you can take it multiple times and get multiple cohorts if you want. I've never seen anyone do that, but you could.
Three of the PCs in my game have leadership. It's actually pretty popular. One uses it to staff his fortress-like home, the other two used it to get "back-up companions." A fighter got a cleric to heal him and a paladin got a sagely wizard to do research and make magic items.
Monte"
Similar Threads
