Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kapture" data-source="post: 3531801" data-attributes="member: 7645">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.</blockquote>

Verification