[Michael Chandra]

I know with SR5 at some point people deconstructed the archetypes and corrected them. Hope someone will give it a shot soon.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Probably a good idea to wait for all the errata first. I’d hate to do something like that 3 times.

[steelybran]

Leadership isn't defined at all as to what it does.
It gets mentioned the following times in the book:

Specialization: Etiquette, Instruction, Intimidation,
Leadership, Negotiation
Untrained: Yes
Primary Linked Attribute: Charisma.
Secondary Linked Attribute: Logic, when making
a clear argument. Mainly in Negotiation, could
also be in some leadership situations.

Then when Leadership situations get Edge.

That's it.

Not sure if this is "blindness" or more "nerfing the heck out of this skill"

[Michael Chandra]

Since they didn't remove it in the errata, might be that Leadership will get more detail in a future book.

[steelybran]

Since they didn't remove it in the errata, might be that Leadership will get more detail in a future book.

It is odd to include a skill in the Core Book but not define it until an expansion...

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Since they didn't remove it in the errata, might be that Leadership will get more detail in a future book.

It is odd to include a skill in the Core Book but not define it until an expansion...

Leadership is not a skill; it's a specialization.

And you can pick any specialization you want. The bounds of what it covers or doesn't cover is up to your GM.

[steelybran]

Since they didn't remove it in the errata, might be that Leadership will get more detail in a future book.

It is odd to include a skill in the Core Book but not define it until an expansion...

Leadership is not a skill; it's a specialization.

And you can pick any specialization you want. The bounds of what it covers or doesn't cover is up to your GM.

Ehhh...

I would say that Leadership differs because there needs an associated mechanic.  Leaving it open becomes problematic in things like organized missions play, where one GM might say "Leadership works like 5e and you can inspire your teammates" and another might say "Leadership means you're good at convincing military personnel to do X" - especially when you consider that rank is specifically listed as a Edge mechanic for Leadership.

[FastJack]

Since they didn't remove it in the errata, might be that Leadership will get more detail in a future book.

It is odd to include a skill in the Core Book but not define it until an expansion...

Leadership is not a skill; it's a specialization.

And you can pick any specialization you want. The bounds of what it covers or doesn't cover is up to your GM.

Ehhh...

I would say that Leadership differs because there needs an associated mechanic.  Leaving it open becomes problematic in things like organized missions play, where one GM might say "Leadership works like 5e and you can inspire your teammates" and another might say "Leadership means you're good at convincing military personnel to do X" - especially when you consider that rank is specifically listed as a Edge mechanic for Leadership.

Or, it's both. Or, it's neither. It's a GM call, just like using Negotiation in the same instances.

[penllawen]

Or, it's both. Or, it's neither. It's a GM call, just like using Negotiation in the same instances.

You could make the same argument about it being a GM call when Leadership applies in 5e, too -- but in 5e it still gets a little writeup so everyone is on the same page:

Leadership is the ability to direct and motivate others. It’s like Con, except rather than using deception you’re using a position of authority. This skill is especially helpful in situations where the will of a teammate is shaken or someone is being asked to do something uncomfortable. The
Leadership skill is not meant to replace or make up for poor teamwork.

I agree with steelybran. Where a 5e skill has become a 6e specialistion, but the specialisation's name is in any way ambiguous, it would be clearer if the 5e paragraph describing it had come over as a sidebar in 6e.

[markelphoenix]

Or, it's both. Or, it's neither. It's a GM call, just like using Negotiation in the same instances.

You could make the same argument about it being a GM call when Leadership applies in 5e, too -- but in 5e it still gets a little writeup so everyone is on the same page:

Leadership is the ability to direct and motivate others. It’s like Con, except rather than using deception you’re using a position of authority. This skill is especially helpful in situations where the will of a teammate is shaken or someone is being asked to do something uncomfortable. The
Leadership skill is not meant to replace or make up for poor teamwork.

I agree with steelybran. Where a 5e skill has become a 6e specialistion, but the specialisation's name is in any way ambiguous, it would be clearer if the 5e paragraph describing it had come over as a sidebar in 6e.

I kind of agree that this falls under change blindness. If there is an assumption that the 5e Leadership is just 'known' and nothing has 'changed', then no reason to add it to the CRB or even think about it (i.e. change blindness). For a new player, or at least for consistency, explicit call out should be noted in book, or at least an example of, "This is a way it can be used...." as they do with many other skills.

[FastJack]

I agree that more of a write-up could help, but I believe they were under a word/page-count limit for the book as well.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

There's certainly no reason a Leadership mechanic like 5e couldn't show up in a future 6we book.

But as is.. Leadership is a suggested specialization of Influence.  What Leadership does as of now is apply +2 skill ranks to your Influence skill test in whatever circumstances the GM agrees "Leadership" is a sensible fit for.  As FJ noted, it does exactly the same thing as Negotiation.


Personally, I never thought 5e needed both the Teamwork rules AND the Leadership rules.  And of the two, I thought Leadership was the one that was less necessary.  Because let's face it... all Leadership did was allow you to do a Teamwork test with someone without needing to know the skill yourself.

[steelybran]

There's certainly no reason a Leadership mechanic like 5e couldn't show up in a future 6we book.

But as is.. Leadership is a suggested specialization of Influence.  What Leadership does as of now is apply +2 skill ranks to your Influence skill test in whatever circumstances the GM agrees "Leadership" is a sensible fit for.  As FJ noted, it does exactly the same thing as Negotiation.


Personally, I never thought 5e needed both the Teamwork rules AND the Leadership rules.  And of the two, I thought Leadership was the one that was less necessary.  Because let's face it... all Leadership did was allow you to do a Teamwork test with someone without needing to know the skill yourself.

I always interpreted leadership as a way of keeping the Face way more relevant during combat while not have them directly be as combat effective as other combat roles.  Giving your teammates the dice also means your actively improving their experience as well.  It basically made you the Bard of Shadowrun.

[Michael Chandra]

Maybe Small Unit Tactics knowledge skill should enable Influence (Leadership) rolls for benefits.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

SMU was imo a terrible experiment.  Knowledge skills never should have had direct combat effects.