Leadership Feat

[Markn]

Is the Leadership Feat unbalanced?

I have played in a lot of campaigns and I have DM'd in lot of campaigns so I have experience on both sides of the fence with this feat. In the beginning, I really, really liked the Leadership Feat especially since you could bring a cohort on your adventures (at least that is how we have always played it). At any rate, over time I am of the conclusion that Leadership is not a good feat to allow strictly for balance purposes. As most adventures are written for four PC's, the addition of a fifth drastically changes the balance of the adventure. It's true that I could alter the adventure to account for that but honestly, DM's have enough work to do already! Additionally, the cohort is usually someone who fills a need in the party and is usually designed in such a way that it maximizes every other PC. For example, in the current campaign the cohort is a sorceror who casts haste, teleport, etc, that they party does not want to waste slots on but are important to have. This is not to say that the NPC is 1 dimensional because my players try to play the NPC as a character but the reward seems to outweigh the majority of other feats that are available.

What do others think of this feat and how have they handled it?

 

[DM_Jeff]

Is the Leadership Feat unbalanced? What do others think of this feat and how have they handled it?

I don't think it's unbalanced as much as without a careful DM it can be abused.

If the player is of a certain devious quality he'll create a follower to perfectly compliment his own PC, decreasing the needs of the rest of the group and becoming a sort of lone wolf. Also, this person gets to act twice as long as everyone else at the table and do more things on his turn, at the expense of the others' play time.

Needless to say I prefer the kind of follower who aids behind the scenes and not on adventures (and I promote and stress that to players who use Leadership in my campaigns), but it can't always be helped. Followers in behind-the scenes or more roleplaying/story oriented roles excel and add a lot to the game.

-DM Jeff

 

[Edheldur]

I just don't like it, precisely for the reasons you've mentioned. So, I don't allow it in my games. If the PCs want to get allies or things like that, they have to get them by other means (role playing, in game actions, etc.)

 

[Meloncov]

Balence is only really improtant when comparing the PCs, so that one does not consistently outshine the others.. A cohort boosts the entire party, not just the individual with the leadership feat, and as such isn't unbalenced.

Almost all adventures can handle five charecters with few or no changes; how do you think large groups manage?

Leadership does have its problems, but they have more to do with slowing the game down than with balence.

 

[Markn]

Balence is only really improtant when comparing the PCs, so that one does not consistently outshine the others.. A cohort boosts the entire party, not just the individual with the leadership feat, and as such isn't unbalenced.

Almost all adventures can handle five charecters with few or no changes; how do you think large groups manage?

Leadership does have its problems, but they have more to do with slowing the game down than with balence.

I don't deny the fact D&D can't be played with larger groups but it does add to the workload of the DM. Adjustments do need to be made to accomodate that. In terms of balance, a fifth PC (NPC) even with a few levels lower is a significant boost. All my players are very savy strategy wise and while they try not to abuse rules (too much) they are capable of maximizing a character even if it is a few levels less. So, while it is not unbalancing in a player vs player situation, it does force extra precautions as a DM to account for the boost in power due to their extra level of preparedness and resources they have.

 

[lukelightning]

Yeah, it could be unbalanced. But I generally have no problem with it. The only time I've seen it used it's been to "patch up" a party that needed a cleric for healing.

 

[Markn]

Yeah, it could be unbalanced. But I generally have no problem with it. The only time I've seen it used it's been to "patch up" a party that needed a cleric for healing.

To be honest, I think this is the perfect use for it....

 

[TerraDave]

The group I DM for has two cohorts (along with a familiar and the shadow dancer's shadow) who adventure with the party and are designed to cover various gaps the party has. I think it is great overall...

In terms of your (Markn) issue, cohorts also use as well as produce resources. That sorcerer has got to be healed and protected. In at least some cases (many in my own experience), the lower level cohorts may actually open up offensive options that really aren't viable against the higher level PCs (ie they give you new ways to hurt the party without having to take out a PC). And I should note, the encounters I am using are the same (I am running a module), but I do run them differently.

Let me put it like this: kill the cohort. Or at least try once in a while. If you suceed, the leadership score of his master will go down, and the replacement will not be as good. OR, they have to use resources to keep him in play AND he is going to want some compensation for all this! So he better be getting some treasure.

At least that is the idea, hope it helps.

 

[EricNoah]

I don't care for it myself. I also am not a big fan of animal companions or familiars. It's not so much about balance, but more about how much of the spotlight is on one player. In combat situations, this means one player gets to do more "fun things" each round because he's running 2 characters.

 

[Kapture]

One of my players is using leadership. After thinking about it awhile, I've come to the following conclusion.

Leadership is unnecessary.

RAW, it adds another strong arm to the group, letting them handle encounters more efficiently and gives them the same XP as if there were one fewer player in the group (a benefit) and less gold (if split near even). At the very least, it costs gold to raise them if they croak in combat.

This is not unbalanced, but does change the flow of play, speeding up the game and level advancement incrementally.

And, it hoses a character out of a feat that would be better used to develop a character.

I started a thread a couple of months ago, after my player took leadership, in order to get a feeling for how other people used the feat. Most people said that they used it to provide background characters that they can control.

Let's face it: feats, along with gold, skills, and class levels, measure power in combat. Power outside of combat is measured by the story the GM is telling.

I'd rather see my players use their feats to create interesting characters, and provide the background PCs. If they want an extra arm in combat, I'll give them an NPC. And they can split the gold and XP evenly.

That said, looking at the feat led me to develop a system for keeping track of social capital. I kind of created a second layer of "treasure," gained when you help specific groups or individuals, that can be used to buy favors or start an organization. For me, it acts as a barometer for where the characters social power is, and keeps that neatly separated from the characters performance on the battle field.