Leadership feat or roleplaying

[woodelf]

I'm putting together the player handout for my D&D game--setting info that all the characters would know, house rules, summary of [which parts of] which rulebooks we're using, etc.--and an interesting question crossed my mind. Should i include the Leadership feat? At first, the "obvious" answer was 'no', because i'm using Arcana Unearthed as my core book, and i'm starting from the assumption that any changes Monte made, vis-a-vis D&D3E, are deliberate. But then a discussion online of something else pointed out that it "of course" wasn't there, because it's in the DMG, and AU is a players' handbook. Which got me thinking about it. [I don't really care whether Monte left it out because he doesn't like the flavor for AU, or because it doesn't belong in a players' book, or through oversight--that's not the point.]

At first, i thought about sticking it in. But then i thought that maybe i'd rather leave acquiring followers, etc., to RPing. So, i thought i'd turn here, and see if anybody has any persuasive arguments, one way or the other. Is leadership an important/necessary feat, especially in a game that has as much RPing as combat, and may turn political? Or is it precisely in RP-heavy games that it should be excised, in favor of what the PCs earn in-game? Is there some reason that the game 'doesn't work' either with or without the feat? Why *is* it in the DMG, rather than the PH, in the first place?

 

[MerricB]

Leadership has been an important feat in my games and something that most of the players have wanted to acquire.

To some extent this is because I don't spend a large amount of time on role-playing their characters' lives outside of their adventures. My concern is the action and excitement of adventuring life - not the nitty gritty of training and running believable towns.

Thus, Leadership allows me to abstract out that process. If the player feels that it is important for the character to attract a cohort and/or followers, the Leadership feat allows that to occur.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

As to why Leadership is in the DMG:

It is because it changes the nature of the game. A standard D&D game has one PC per player. Leadership suddenly means a player is controlling more than one character.

This can cause one player to suddenly dominate (twice as many actions, share of the treasure, etc.) or may slow down the game too much (8+ active characters?)

Cheers!

 

[Fenes]

We have few combats in our campaign, and few "classic adventures". The campaign centers on social standing, politics, personal goals and relationships, so followers in our campaign are the result of roleplaying, not a feat.

 

[argo]

The reason to have Leadership as a feat is if you expect one (or some) of your players to try and aquire followers while the rest don't. Making the player who gets followers spend a feat (read: character resource) on it keeps him balanced with the player(s) who didn't.

If you expect every player in your game to eventually get an entorage then I would suggest that you house-rule that everybody gets Leadership as a bonus feat at 6th level but you will be forcing them to RP attracting their followers in exchange (as opposed to just having the followers show up).

Hope that helps.

 

[Tonguez]

I have modified things slightly

'Leadership' has become Influence and is now the class ability of the Aristocrat Class which anyone can take. Influence is determined as Ari level + Cha mod and represents the degree to which he PC can persuade, coerce or otherwise influence the people around him/her

the Cohort gained from this Influence (who can be higher level) is initially a Patron and always an NPC (the actual Leadership feat can still be taken later to get a real Cohort). Followers represent 'labour' which can also be used (I have a homebrew mechanic for running guilds/villages/realms too)

Basically the Cohort allows the PC to create a 'background NPC' whom I can use and starts to give the PC a better tie-in to the background of the world rather than being an autonomous unir with the world as backdrop....

 

[The_lurkeR]

We have few combats in our campaign, and few "classic adventures". The campaign centers on social standing, politics, personal goals and relationships, so followers in our campaign are the result of roleplaying, not a feat.

Do you not have the Bluff or Diplomacy skills either?

I can understand where you're coming from, but to me there's still room for a Character to have skills and feats to represent their abilities that the Player themselves may not be able to RP as effectively.

 

[Campbell]

My issues with the leadership feat have more to do with mechanical aesthetics than anything else. I prefer mechanical benefits to deal primarily with the character in question, rather than adding another psuedo party member. For this and other reasons, I have dropped the ranger, druid, and paladin classes from my game, and am working at replacing familiars with other benefits. Yeah... I'm strange.

 

[Zoatebix]

...For this and other reasons, I have dropped the ranger, druid, and paladin classes from my game, and am working at replacing familiars with other benefits. Yeah... I'm strange.

I don't know how strange you are, but you're not alone: Benjamin Durbin has stated similar reasons/beliefs for leaving the leadership feat, animal companions, etc. out of Bad Axe Game's Grim Tales.

 

[Fenes]

Do you not have the Bluff or Diplomacy skills either?

I can understand where you're coming from, but to me there's still room for a Character to have skills and feats to represent their abilities that the Player themselves may not be able to RP as effectively.

Oh, no. We use all skills. But leadership in our game does not really require "effective" roleplay. If your character aquires fame and fortune people will take notice, and some of them may decide your character is the perfect teacher, or a chosen hero to be followed, or a good employer etc. It is more appropriate to say that leadership is a bonus feat everyone can take, though any NPC stays an NPC - the character can give orders, but everything but the actual PC - NPCs, monsters, familiars, mounts - will be controlled by the DM.
My stance regarding leadership is more that I had troubles imaging say a paladin with great charisma and greater deeds, doing her god's work and ending up famous who would not automatically aquire followers, a squire, clerical support etc. unless the player choose not to.