Leadership House Rule? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Leadership House Rule? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
lostone
07-10-05, 10:38 AM I'm considering changing Leadership. I don't like the way it is right now: Player takes it and gathers large army to tie up combat for a long time. I don't like large scale combat and so tend to prevent players from taking Leadership (even if we just assume the army is fighting the BBEG's army and the leaders determine which army wins, etc).

I'm thinking of tweaking it so that all Leadership gives is the cohort. That is the most fun part anyway. A character a 5 or so levels lower than you to assist your main character.

I was thinking I might even run a game where the entire group takes this tweaked Leadership and occasionally run a side adventure "mission" with just the cohorts, etc. Split the group up without really splitting the group up. Cohorts could be a "distraction" in front of a castle while the Leaders sneak into the castle.

What do people thing about this weak? Leadership as printed by itself seems far too powerful for a simple feat, even with the drawbacks of having to pay & feed the army.
Cymraegmorgan
07-11-05, 01:10 AM I think highly of Leadership. In a high politics game it is a necessity. I use it as a bonus feat for both Fighters and Sorcerers.
lostone
07-11-05, 08:19 AM I think highly of Leadership. In a high politics game it is a necessity. I use it as a bonus feat for both Fighters and Sorcerers.My players aren't so interested in high politics games (which is fortunate because I am terrible at planning those kinds of games :P). They're more in for monty haul type games with more plot. But they rarely meet with the high ups for witty banter and negotiations or political intrigue. And they rarely have need for a large army. They just don't seem to enjoy planning strategy for large armies, they prefer more covert operations.
Error 401
07-12-05, 04:10 AM Simply replace Leadership with the Great Diplomat Feat from OA. It's like Leadership, except you only get the Cohort, but you also get a +2 to Diplomacy, and you Leadership score counts as two higher for the Cohort's level. Since this is a regional-equivalent feat and thus maybe a little stronger than normal, you could use this version:

Leadership [General]
Prerequisites: Character level 6+
Benefits: You gain a cohort (see the DMG section on Leadership). In addition, you gain a +2 bonus on Diplomacy or Intimidate, depending on what leadership style you use.
lostone
07-12-05, 08:06 AM Good idea, I was unaware of that feat. And you can take it at first level instead of waiting until 6th like Leadership.
weasel fierce
07-12-05, 01:34 PM If you dont want large scale warfare in your game, dont make adventures that involve large scale forces
lostone
07-12-05, 02:02 PM If you dont want large scale warfare in your game, dont make adventures that involve large scale forcesI don't. But I am looking for ways to tweak Leadership to be usable in my games. Instead of allowing Leadership and having a character who has a massive army that does not help him, I'm thinking of just getting rid of the army and allowing him to keep the cohort.
weasel fierce
07-12-05, 02:18 PM Im not entirely up on 3.x rules, but do you need a feat to have a henchman ?
lostone
07-12-05, 02:24 PM Depends on your definition of Henchman. When I hear that word I imagine a low level grunt/manservant underling that carries my gear around and helps with day-to-day activities.

A Cohort is more like a trusted sidekick or general or officer of your army. The King's right-hand man.
Elzaban the Ethereal
07-12-05, 10:07 PM Im not entirely up on 3.x rules, but do you need a feat to have a henchman ?

Since the henchmen are now pretty much cohorts, yeah, you need Leadership to get them (which irritates me to no end). Personally, I use the Leadership feat as something that gives you followers, who rarely, if ever, adventure with the party, and a bonus henchman that doesn't count against the Charisma based lifetime-henchman-number limit.

lostone, if you don't want to have these largescale battles, I'd suggest less by way of tweaking the Leadership feat and more by enforcing an idea that the characters' followers, being much lower in level than they are, aren't that fit for adventure-time, and are more along the lines of associates who guard the PC's homes, run errands for them, etc. If that doesn't work, then the set up you've got here sounds like it might work. Perhaps in lieu of followers, the PC gains more cohorts with the feat (for higher leadership scores), with each cohort having to be lower level than the last one (say, one 2 levels below you, one 4 levels below, one 6 levels below, etc). That way, they can rally some sort of force if necessary, but not a giant 200+ man army that you have to keep track of. Adding in that +2 Diplomacy/Intimidate bonus as Error 401 suggested would be fitting, too, methinks.
weasel fierce
07-13-05, 01:02 AM ah, that explains it then

The old version of the henchman was the trusted ally, faithfull squire or the occasional backstabbing bastard.

Requiring a feat to have that is rather silly.
DwarvinJedi
07-13-05, 02:27 AM ah, that explains it then

The old version of the henchman was the trusted ally, faithfull squire or the occasional backstabbing bastard.

Requiring a feat to have that is rather silly.
You can still hire henchmen.

In D20 modern and Star Wars and Mutants & Masterminds, Leadership is broken into 2 feats, one for the army, and another for the cohort
VikingWarrior
07-14-05, 10:44 PM Leadership [General]
Prerequisites: Character level 6+
Benefits: You gain a cohort (see the DMG section on Leadership). In addition, you gain a +2 bonus on Diplomacy or Intimidate, depending on what leadership style you use.

Damn, I know my current character (NE Drow Wizard15/Archmage1) would have been better of taking that feat than regular 'Leadership'. I'm not going to start atracting followers, as I have no use (well, no practical use anyway ;) ) for a great number of low-level followers. The only real reason I took it was to get a cohort, not that I've regretted taking the feat, mind you! (My cohort is a Succubus demon! How can you not like that?) But still, +2 to a rarely used skill would have been better than being allowed to get all those followers I never wanted anyway.
kliate
07-16-05, 11:02 PM A few considerations:

-The players handbook notes that the player should discuss the feat with the DM before taking it. In some cases, an answer of "Just don't" may be most appropriate.

-Many monsters are actually quite well suited to dealing with swarms of little guys. Thats exactly the sort of thing Mass spells and area effects are for. Even better if you can also catch their leader in the blast.

-Another thought I had was to swap leadership into a point-based feat, working as follows:

Leadership Score/Leadership Points
1/0
2/1
3/4
4/9
5/9
6/16
7/25
8/25
9/36
10/54
11/55
12/72
13/95
14/119
15/137
16/163
17/211
18/216
19/284
20/350
21/429
22/482
23/561
24/631
25/725

Cohorts and followers would become essentially the same thing, "bought" with leadership points at a cost equal to their level squared. The maximum level for a cohort would remain at two less than that of the character who took the feat. This also allows characters with moderately low charisma to sacrifice a ton of followers in order to gain a reasonable cohort, or to sacrifice a significant amount of cohort strength to add variety to their followers.

In general, however, followers should not be effective contributors to any combat (and the cohort should almost never be a front-liner). When the first few followers get fireballed to the nine hells, most of the other followers will be ready to flee the scene and not care if they ever see their master again. The "caused the death of a cohort/other followers" penalties for leadership should apply from then on, as well.
The Livewire
07-17-05, 11:28 AM at 6+ level?

Most of my low level followers are going to be in a town or base of operations. Warriors sure, but also experts, adepts (magewrights if I can swing it) and then classed characters as well. Either a) my cohort will hopefully compliment my own abilities or b) will be an artificer, so I don't need item creation feats

But that's just my opinion.

Addendum: if it's a thrallheard, rather than leadership, by all means send them into battle.
Far_Traveler
07-17-05, 03:10 PM I have a idea, how about them taking the leadership feat, and just have them not automatically get a army, BUT! when you feel like giving them a large-scale battle, allow them to very easily round up a army instead.

how about it? he'd still get the cohort of course
Masterful_Norg
07-17-05, 05:09 PM I like to handle armies or mobs in large scale battles as one usually handles swarms. This makes combat less never ending.
Elvintry
07-20-05, 03:03 PM I allow leadership as it stands...however I only allow a cohort while the player is playing the character...It's not until the character retires that I allow him to amass an army...unless I want to run a war campaign...Sometimes, if I only want them to have a small group, I allow them to combine the lower level characters for higher level ones....like swap 5 1st level characters for one 5th level or 2 2nd level characters for one 4th level etc...This creates a group of higher level characters like a specialist unit. It allows the players to command but only a small unit that can be easily directed by the DM.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lostone 07-10-05, 10:38 AM	I'm considering changing Leadership. I don't like the way it is right now: Player takes it and gathers large army to tie up combat for a long time. I don't like large scale combat and so tend to prevent players from taking Leadership (even if we just assume the army is fighting the BBEG's army and the leaders determine which army wins, etc). I'm thinking of tweaking it so that all Leadership gives is the cohort. That is the most fun part anyway. A character a 5 or so levels lower than you to assist your main character. I was thinking I might even run a game where the entire group takes this tweaked Leadership and occasionally run a side adventure "mission" with just the cohorts, etc. Split the group up without really splitting the group up. Cohorts could be a "distraction" in front of a castle while the Leaders sneak into the castle. What do people thing about this weak? Leadership as printed by itself seems far too powerful for a simple feat, even with the drawbacks of having to pay & feed the army.
Cymraegmorgan 07-11-05, 01:10 AM	I think highly of Leadership. In a high politics game it is a necessity. I use it as a bonus feat for both Fighters and Sorcerers.
lostone 07-11-05, 08:19 AM	I think highly of Leadership. In a high politics game it is a necessity. I use it as a bonus feat for both Fighters and Sorcerers.My players aren't so interested in high politics games (which is fortunate because I am terrible at planning those kinds of games :P). They're more in for monty haul type games with more plot. But they rarely meet with the high ups for witty banter and negotiations or political intrigue. And they rarely have need for a large army. They just don't seem to enjoy planning strategy for large armies, they prefer more covert operations.
Error 401 07-12-05, 04:10 AM	Simply replace Leadership with the Great Diplomat Feat from OA. It's like Leadership, except you only get the Cohort, but you also get a +2 to Diplomacy, and you Leadership score counts as two higher for the Cohort's level. Since this is a regional-equivalent feat and thus maybe a little stronger than normal, you could use this version: Leadership [General] Prerequisites: Character level 6+ Benefits: You gain a cohort (see the DMG section on Leadership). In addition, you gain a +2 bonus on Diplomacy or Intimidate, depending on what leadership style you use.
lostone 07-12-05, 08:06 AM	Good idea, I was unaware of that feat. And you can take it at first level instead of waiting until 6th like Leadership.
weasel fierce 07-12-05, 01:34 PM	If you dont want large scale warfare in your game, dont make adventures that involve large scale forces
lostone 07-12-05, 02:02 PM	If you dont want large scale warfare in your game, dont make adventures that involve large scale forcesI don't. But I am looking for ways to tweak Leadership to be usable in my games. Instead of allowing Leadership and having a character who has a massive army that does not help him, I'm thinking of just getting rid of the army and allowing him to keep the cohort.
weasel fierce 07-12-05, 02:18 PM	Im not entirely up on 3.x rules, but do you need a feat to have a henchman ?
lostone 07-12-05, 02:24 PM	Depends on your definition of Henchman. When I hear that word I imagine a low level grunt/manservant underling that carries my gear around and helps with day-to-day activities. A Cohort is more like a trusted sidekick or general or officer of your army. The King's right-hand man.
Elzaban the Ethereal 07-12-05, 10:07 PM	Im not entirely up on 3.x rules, but do you need a feat to have a henchman ? Since the henchmen are now pretty much cohorts, yeah, you need Leadership to get them (which irritates me to no end). Personally, I use the Leadership feat as something that gives you followers, who rarely, if ever, adventure with the party, and a bonus henchman that doesn't count against the Charisma based lifetime-henchman-number limit. lostone, if you don't want to have these largescale battles, I'd suggest less by way of tweaking the Leadership feat and more by enforcing an idea that the characters' followers, being much lower in level than they are, aren't that fit for adventure-time, and are more along the lines of associates who guard the PC's homes, run errands for them, etc. If that doesn't work, then the set up you've got here sounds like it might work. Perhaps in lieu of followers, the PC gains more cohorts with the feat (for higher leadership scores), with each cohort having to be lower level than the last one (say, one 2 levels below you, one 4 levels below, one 6 levels below, etc). That way, they can rally some sort of force if necessary, but not a giant 200+ man army that you have to keep track of. Adding in that +2 Diplomacy/Intimidate bonus as Error 401 suggested would be fitting, too, methinks.
weasel fierce 07-13-05, 01:02 AM	ah, that explains it then The old version of the henchman was the trusted ally, faithfull squire or the occasional backstabbing bastard. Requiring a feat to have that is rather silly.
DwarvinJedi 07-13-05, 02:27 AM	ah, that explains it then The old version of the henchman was the trusted ally, faithfull squire or the occasional backstabbing bastard. Requiring a feat to have that is rather silly. You can still hire henchmen. In D20 modern and Star Wars and Mutants & Masterminds, Leadership is broken into 2 feats, one for the army, and another for the cohort
VikingWarrior 07-14-05, 10:44 PM	Leadership [General] Prerequisites: Character level 6+ Benefits: You gain a cohort (see the DMG section on Leadership). In addition, you gain a +2 bonus on Diplomacy or Intimidate, depending on what leadership style you use. Damn, I know my current character (NE Drow Wizard15/Archmage1) would have been better of taking that feat than regular 'Leadership'. I'm not going to start atracting followers, as I have no use (well, no practical use anyway ;) ) for a great number of low-level followers. The only real reason I took it was to get a cohort, not that I've regretted taking the feat, mind you! (My cohort is a Succubus demon! How can you not like that?) But still, +2 to a rarely used skill would have been better than being allowed to get all those followers I never wanted anyway.
kliate 07-16-05, 11:02 PM	A few considerations: -The players handbook notes that the player should discuss the feat with the DM before taking it. In some cases, an answer of "Just don't" may be most appropriate. -Many monsters are actually quite well suited to dealing with swarms of little guys. Thats exactly the sort of thing Mass spells and area effects are for. Even better if you can also catch their leader in the blast. -Another thought I had was to swap leadership into a point-based feat, working as follows: Leadership Score/Leadership Points 1/0 2/1 3/4 4/9 5/9 6/16 7/25 8/25 9/36 10/54 11/55 12/72 13/95 14/119 15/137 16/163 17/211 18/216 19/284 20/350 21/429 22/482 23/561 24/631 25/725 Cohorts and followers would become essentially the same thing, "bought" with leadership points at a cost equal to their level squared. The maximum level for a cohort would remain at two less than that of the character who took the feat. This also allows characters with moderately low charisma to sacrifice a ton of followers in order to gain a reasonable cohort, or to sacrifice a significant amount of cohort strength to add variety to their followers. In general, however, followers should not be effective contributors to any combat (and the cohort should almost never be a front-liner). When the first few followers get fireballed to the nine hells, most of the other followers will be ready to flee the scene and not care if they ever see their master again. The "caused the death of a cohort/other followers" penalties for leadership should apply from then on, as well.
The Livewire 07-17-05, 11:28 AM	at 6+ level? Most of my low level followers are going to be in a town or base of operations. Warriors sure, but also experts, adepts (magewrights if I can swing it) and then classed characters as well. Either a) my cohort will hopefully compliment my own abilities or b) will be an artificer, so I don't need item creation feats But that's just my opinion. Addendum: if it's a thrallheard, rather than leadership, by all means send them into battle.
Far_Traveler 07-17-05, 03:10 PM	I have a idea, how about them taking the leadership feat, and just have them not automatically get a army, BUT! when you feel like giving them a large-scale battle, allow them to very easily round up a army instead. how about it? he'd still get the cohort of course
Masterful_Norg 07-17-05, 05:09 PM	I like to handle armies or mobs in large scale battles as one usually handles swarms. This makes combat less never ending.
Elvintry 07-20-05, 03:03 PM	I allow leadership as it stands...however I only allow a cohort while the player is playing the character...It's not until the character retires that I allow him to amass an army...unless I want to run a war campaign...Sometimes, if I only want them to have a small group, I allow them to combine the lower level characters for higher level ones....like swap 5 1st level characters for one 5th level or 2 2nd level characters for one 4th level etc...This creates a group of higher level characters like a specialist unit. It allows the players to command but only a small unit that can be easily directed by the DM.