What if Leadership were a Fighter-only feat?

[InnaBinder]

It would certainly be a boost to the fighter, and give a reason to take six levels of the class. What I find funny about it, is that this approach could be paraphrased: "To fix the fighter, we'll let you play a fighter and let you roll up a real character on the side".

This should probably have a caveat that the cohort must be a caster, or something. Otherwise, it's not very helpful. A 6th level fighter bringing a 4th level monk to the table isn't doing much more than a 6th level fighter hiring a commoner 1 to move around and stand in the way of things so they can't charge.

Hiring a bard to record his exploits or inspire him to greater heights on the battlefield seems appropriate for the "Fighter's Cohort" concept within the D&D universe as explored in this thread.

[RobbyPants]

Hiring a bard to record his exploits or inspire him to greater heights on the battlefield seems appropriate for the "Fighter's Cohort" concept within the D&D universe as explored in this thread.

I'm not saying it can't work or make sense in-universe. It just reminds me of a comment I read on the old WotC boards five or six years ago. Someone asked for help on rolling up a 6th+ level monk, and one of the first replies was "Take Leadership and roll up a real character".

I just chuckled a bit when I saw this and remembered that.

[Empirate]

How about changing the Leadership thing around a bit (while still eliminating it as a feat), and tie it to Fighter class levels? Maybe grant followers as per the feat, and grant weaker cohorts with levels depending on their class.

E.g., you can hire another Fighter, or a Monk, or a Barbarian, or a Rogue, or a Ranger at level-2, a Bard or a Duskblade or a Swordsage etc. at level -3, a Sorcerer or Favored Soul at level -4, or a Wizard or Cleric at level -5. You'd also need a way of incorporating NPC building rules, and have the DM build the cohort(s). That way, the Fighter class would actually be about commanding their loyal sidekick and other guys to do their bidding, AND being (slightly) kickass in one or two chosen fighting styles themselves.

Change skillpoints to 4+Int while you're at it, include Diplomacy, Spot, Listen, and Knowledge (nobility and Royalty) among their class skills, give them a good Will save, and throw in some Inspire Courage for good measure (maybe more class features to make followers more useful, even), and you're looking at one of the more interesting ways to fix the Fighter.

[Raineh Daze]

I'm with team 'how the hell is this a fighter thing'. I think it seems more Paladin-ish than Fighter, really. Fighters fight. That's why they're called fighters. @_@

Also, seeing the list on the previous page: 8-Bit Theatre. Fighter is in no way in charge. XD

[Keldar]

In the olden times, Fighter was the class that got the most and the most powerful followers.  (Barring the Ranger rolling something really good.)  That's the relevant precedent.

Still wouldn't help the actual Fighter, but it would restrict Leadership to the one class it isn't utterly broken for.   

[Jackinthegreen]

Pretty sure it wouldn't be broken for most T6 or T5 classes either, depending on the cohort of course.

[Empirate]

The (good?) old times saw Fighters get a whole fucking keep, complete with staff, as a class feature. Didn't change the way the Fighter performed in dem dungeons, of course, but it changed the way the class was perceived. Moreover, it changed the way the game was played. Instead of solving earth-shattering crises all on their own, high-level PCs were bound into a social network and could fall back on resources other than personal power.

3.x did one thing differently: it didn't acknowledge the game-changing nature of high-level play (instead of Dungeons & Dragons, you're playing Kings & Things, and still later it's Deities & Demigods). Instead, it introduced the concept of "level-appropriateness": of wealth, of monster encounters, even of classes you can take up (via PrCs). Now everybody "knows" that social capital, fame, titles, lands mean nothing for what the game is "supposed" to be about. Only raw personal power matters, because even a million tax-paying subjects won't help you any against that Great Wyrm Red Dragon or Balor or Half-Farspawn Phrenic Lolth-touched Illithid Lich who somehow happens to be the first of your four to-be-expected daily encounters.

The (good? old!) Fighter doesn't fare too well under these circumstances, keep or no keep. But giving him something to fall back on, e.g. a landed title and some underlings to bully, can be pretty nice if your campaign takes a more socialite and less dungeon-y route. Giving him a more-or-less competent, but not "real character" powerful sidekick can help in the latter, too.

So I endorse Leadership for Fighters only. Just do something about the rest of the class already...

[akalsaris]

I played in an arena game once where the opposite was a core rule: every class could take leadership, but the only cohorts you could take had to have +0 LA and all their levels in the fighter class 

Saw some entertaining builds come out of that. Dual-shield wielding, fighters with all their bonus feats on martial study/stance, etc.

[Amechra]

I started something here that you could maybe look at?

The idea is completely alter how the Leadership system works, and base it off of multiple feats.

[InnaBinder]

I suppose technically one thing to specify if I were to try this houserule is how it interacts with classes like Warblade that can take Fighter-only feats on a delayed schedule.