Leadership Feat

[Jedi_Solo]

My DM likes having a cohort in the party as it gives him a voice into the PC's conversations. If we are all standing around having apparently overlooked something obvious (or at least something the DM thought was obvious) the cohort/DM can pipe up and slap the rest of us on the back of the head and point out what we have missed.

Having a cohort (or especially multiple cohorts/animal companions/familiers/special mounts/etc) in the party can cause the party to become more powerful and might even slow the game down since there are more actions to be taken per round. It can also help support the party if a player isn't able to make a session.

 

[Vague Jayhawk]

In a recent long-term game our characters had some land and a small keep granted to them for their services. My dwarven cleric immediately took the leadership feat and stocked the keep with loyal servents and guards. The cohort (dwarven fighter/paladin) was left behind to administer the keep and to protect it. It worked out really well.

I put a lot of thought and work into it. My DM never used it as the adventure hook that I was hoping he would. But we had a safe place to stay in between adventures and a place to keep our stuff during adventures.

 

[dagger]

We allow the feat sometimes but we have a strict CORE PHB ONLY for the cohort.

 

[sckeener]

Leadership in my game is a free feat that can be earned but not taken. By the same token it is free and can be take away at any time.

Since I use allegiances in my game, the group formed has an allegiance. If the leader ever drops the group's allegiance, then he is out of the group. The group might or might not continue without a leader. A new leader might take the character's place.

I find it balanced in that it is part of the story we am weaving. There are conditions placed on the character because of his allegiance that make the followers more than meat shields.

 

[Kheti sa-Menik]

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

I agree. As with so many things in the game, as long as the DM has a firm hand and can say NO to his players to regulate craziness, it's okay. To tell the truth, it seems to be work for the player than any other feat. You have to keep a record of the cohort and followers, what they are doing, money you need to spend to keep them housed and fed. A PC has to worry about keeping them safe lest it become more and more difficult to replace slain followers as the negatives to his Leadership score pile up.

These people don't just appear *poof* out of no where. If the PCs are exploring a wilderness with no civilization and level and get to choose feats...and they could choose Leadership but until they return to civilization, they aren't going to have the opportunity to recruit.

The DM needs to be the one who creates the cohort, not the PC. The DM looks fairly at the kind of people the PC could recruit as his cohort, at the available people in the area of the game world that the PC is at, and goes from there.

With a firm hand, the DM can safetly allow this feat.

In my experience, I've only seen it used twice. A player who was playing a paladin who was a noble and owned lands recruited a cohort that was an expert landlord and could function as his seneschal while the PC was out adventuring. The followers were guards/servants/staff. So the feat was a roleplaying/utility choice, not one that had a real impact on effectiveness in the field.

The second time was in the game I am playing in now. It's my PC who has the feat. My PC is a minor noble with land and title (human Bard/Aristocrat). My followers are warriors and fighters who look after my lands while I am away. My cohort is a Gnome Rogue/Cleric of Olidammara/Thief Acrobat. The DM made him, and levels him up. He's not that powerful a combatant as he is a low STR gnome and he has low HPs, his cleric spells are more utility than anything else though he occasionally buffs, his rogue type abilities are often overshadowed by the PC scout (as they should be since the gnome is an NPC). He's a humorous guy as befitting a gnome, and contributes healing alongside my bard to the group. The DM made a utility-based, roleplaying cohort more than a powerhouse puppet that many people who take this feat do.

A lot of players seem to want to take the feat, create a character with no personality but in class/skill/feat choices perfectly refutes his PC's weaknesses or vastly increases his strengths. The key is that DM controls this cohort in creation and throughout the game.

 

[Sejs]

It requires some careful handling on the part of the DM. I mean it is the only feat to have a warning label on it, after all.

Done right though, it can be fun. One of the best uses I've seen to date was when the rogue character in our game took the feat, had the cohort (the ever-awesome Sticky the Mimic), and used the followers to represent a wide network of contacts and informants.

Worked out very, very well.

 

[SiderisAnon]

As a DM, I love the Leadership feat. In fact, I've lowered the prerequisites so that it can be gained as early as 3rd level in my current campaign.

The Leadership feat has seen frequent use in previous campaigns. It is generally used to represent staff, servants, or in one case the general mooks that followed around a military leader. (It was a higher level game, so there were enough to represent like 50-100 troops.)

That being said, you do have to be careful with the feat. The DM should design the cohort and should keep an eye on how he or she is used. They are not a puppet. They have a life of their own. If they're being abused, they're going to react.

I also assume the cohort gets a share (or partial share) of treasure and I adjust exp to reflect the presence of a cohort. (Assuming it's a combat cohort that makes fighting opponents easier.)

Maybe I just have good players, but in truth I've never had someone abuse a cohort. The closest I've come to a problem was one player who developed his cohort to the point where he had as much personality as the main character and even though the cohort was weaker, it sometimes was hard to tell who was the primary character. However, since he ran them both as unique characters with their own personality, drives, and goals, nobody seemed to mind.

 

[Imp]

I like the feat, but I make it stick a bit closer to its 1e moorings and make the player decide what, exactly, he wants to lead – a ship? a guild? a temple? a mercenary company? a network of contacts? etc. So it gives the player responsibilities, too. Not so happy with the ooh free healbot interpretation of the feat. It would have to be someone who would plausibly become a follower of the character.

 

[Quartz]

I sometimes regret that followers are bundled in with the cohort.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

It is more powerful than other feats if you allow the cohort to adventure with the party, even if you don't try to abuse the cohort there is no way that adding an extra PC classed character (even at -2 levels) is not better than nearly any other feat. This is particuarly true since the cohort does not take away from the PCs share of the XP.

That said it is still a cool feat.