DM suggestions for managing cohorts?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

One of my players, an old hand at D&D, has expressed interest in the Pathfinder Leadership feat. He is thinking of having his 9th level paladin pick up a cohort with a ranged weaponry specialization. I'm thinking that it should work out fine, but I'm a little concerned about the game mechanics involved with having our party of 6 upsized by cohorts.

I was thinking that since the cohort is a NPC, I (the awesome DM) should be the one who controls cohort actions, but I don't want to be capricious and take away the "coolness factor" of the feat from the player. It would be helpful to hear what other DMs are doing in this regard. Are you letting PC's manage their cohort as a pseudo-second character, or are you running the cohort like you would the other NPCs in the game? If you do control the cohort's actions, has it slipped into a railroading tool, or do your players enjoy the variability of not knowing with certainty what their follower will do? How do you manage running a cohort as well as all the other good stuff that is on the DM's plate?

Any suggestions from the community would be much appreciated.


Go with the template that the PC wants, but do the crux of the building yourself. Give him a small backstory and personality trait and then let the PC run with the character. The secondary PC should only get a fraction of the XP, but if the PC actually makes distinctions in the role playing between his two characters and follows the personality trait and background of the co-hort, reward him with additional XP.

You can also introduce additional backstories with that co-hort as you see fit if it fits with your campaign arc and see where the PC runs with it.


Thanks for the suggestion. I like the compromise between control and avoiding having one more thing to manage during combat. The story elements could be very interesting.


generally I do not allow it, it bogs down the game quite a bit and hogs more gametime for the player with the cohort
(at the expense of other players)

seems to me 6 players is pretty sizable for a group already, I think it is ok to allow a player to control him within reason, generally when he is adjacent to the character and able to communicate.
feel free to take control at any time though, dont give him the impression he gets two characters for the price of one.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pappy wrote:
One of my players, an old hand at D&D, has expressed interest in the Pathfinder Leadership feat. ... Any suggestions from the community would be much appreciated.

I generally disallow the Leadership feat period. If you have a party of at least 4, there's no need for a cohort unless none of the players want to play a vital role like, say, cleric. Even in that situation (which is what happened with my group when we played through STAP), I NPC'd the Cleric (Favored Soul actually) as a 5th party member, not a cohort.

With 6 players, there's really no need for anyone to have a cohort.

-Skeld


Well, there's an issue with the "no cohorts" rule: some classes grant additional characters as part of the class.

Druid and Ranger have the Animal Companion.
Summoner has the Eidolon.
Some variants of casters have permanent animated undead.

In my current group, I have a player with a heavily modified Eidolon class ability, and another with an animal companion. The third player has just their Rogue.

In combat, between the 3 players, 2 companions, and 3 NPCs, two of my players get one quarter of the turns, while the third player gets only one eighth.

In a recent combat, the rogue tried to climb up a wall to get a proper vantage point, and rolled a 1 (with low modifier, so didn't even hit DC 10).
She then had to wait 7 ally turns, and 5 enemy turns before she could try something again. She wasn't completely disappointed or anything, she was having fun with the story.

However, I did mention that since the group is small, and the others have companions, it might be a good idea to pick up a cohort.
If she does, I plan on letting her pretty much play the cohort as she wants (at this point in the campaign, I have an NPC ready that is pretty much designed to be played however you want, being that she was held under mind control probably most of her life).


yea, it works allright in small groups in general I am not fond of having cohort types around, for small groups it can work out very well though.


For the most part I just remove leadership entirely from my games. It can definitely get ridiculous if you have 5-6 players with a ton of animal companions, cohorts, summoned creatures, etc before even factoring in your enemies.

I do incorporate cohorts, hirelings and followers into the game but I do it on more of an ad hoc basis. The PC wizard might attract an apprentice that's willing to adventure but their is an understanding that the cohort also gets something out of the deal (treasure, spells, glory, etc) and that if the PC treats them bad they might leave the party (or even betray the party).

It's kinda nice because the DM gets a proxy but unlike most DMPCs the cohort generally is weaker than the PCs ;)


In my experience, cohorts are usually an excuse to have some wierd or twinked out NPC following you arround, often better than you are but highly specialized.

The player runs the guy in combat, but out of combat he gives orders and the GM decides how he will respond usually. This keeps him distinct, and the player doesn't get a second PC.


Go get your DM stick.

Mr. Fishy agrees with Urizen, keep close taps on that cohort to prevent player abuse. Mr. Fishy would suggest that you allow the player to control the cohort in combat as a brain saver but remember to enforce the NPC retard rule.

NPC retard rule= NPC's aren't retarded or deaf or blind. They hear what you say, see what you do and they aren't sucidial,(usually).

If it's a problem ask the player to wait for a smaller game. Remember your the one with the stick, say it, "Pappy has the stick." See no your empowered.


Mr. Fishy's sage advice reminds Urizen of this.


He bought the oil didn't he, never under estimate the power of the stick.


One of my prefered ways to handle a Cohort/animal companion/hireling, is to have another player at the table run it. The player and their hireling dont work in perfect mental unison, and I myself dont have to be the one to run the NPC cohort. I also agree that building most or all of the cohort yourself is a good idea. They want a rogue, make them a rogue, but they dont get to pick every feat and talent.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kaisoku wrote:
Well, there's an issue with the "no cohorts" rule: some classes grant additional characters as part of the class.

Most reasonable DMs (like myself) draw a distinction between "cohorts" granted as a class feature versus those gained through Leadership or by just paying for them.

-Skeld


Mr. Fishy likes Kolokotroni's idea, another PC running the cohort would help with abuse. You can stop it but it would help.

Pie for Kolokotroni.


Skeld wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:
Well, there's an issue with the "no cohorts" rule: some classes grant additional characters as part of the class.

Most reasonable DMs (like myself) draw a distinction between "cohorts" granted as a class feature versus those gained through Leadership or by just paying for them.

-Skeld

Paying for them yes, but why a feat? Most of a fighters class abilities are feats. While not all feats and class abilities are equal, I think there is very little distinction between Leadership and an Animal companion, you can even make some degree of choice in whether or not to take the animal companion.


It is going to be more work no matter how you look at it. If you are willing to deal with that, then I suggest you have talk with your player and explain that a cohort is not just a puppet.

Taking something said earlier a little bit further, maybe everyone takes turns running the cohort that way everyone gets a fair share of the 'extra' time and the cohort is much less likely to be a puppet.

Bonus XPs for keeping the cohort 'in character'.


Having just come from a D&D 4e campaign, our group is definitely used to the DM (yours truly) saying something along the lines of "well it may say that in the book, but it doesn't make any sense because of X or Y, and it breaks the game, so forget it." I thought that I would try to play Pathfinder as RAW as possible. I'm not afraid of using the DM stick, but I don't want to nerf cool stuff in Pathfinder after only a few weeks of playing the game. All of us have 3e or 3.5 experience, so we are not total neophites.

Ideas like having another character (not the one with the leadership feat) control the cohort in combat is a really good one. I had not thought of that. These messageboards are really useful.


One other thing to remember, one of the clerical domains gives the leadership feat for free. So you really can't ban it without having to homebrew a change to a domain (which is perfectly fine, but some people prefer to minimize house rules)

In my own games, it goes like this. You take the feat? The Cohort is your problem.

You have to build him (or her), you have to roleplay him or her AS AN INDIVIDUAL!!! I stress that point. The Cohort isn't just some extension of the PC's will, it's an independent character that's chosen to work with the PC.

It can be really entertaining, especially when the player ends up roleplaying the two of them in an argument or disagreeing about something.

In combat, my players know they have to keep things smooth. That means running things quickly.

"Kyrt goes here and attacks that, while Kianna goes there and does this. *rolls all the dice at once, color coded* Alright, I got (insert attack roll results, skill checks, whatever) and if they succeeded (insert amount of damage rolled, other effects, saves required, etc)"

End turn.

I make it a point to run combats smooth and professional, it's cool to insert epic dialogue or mix some roleplay into the combat, but the actual dice rolling damage declaring aspect needs to be crisp and clean.

That way, nobody has to wait forever while somebody's choosing their move or rolling their dice one set at a time, and everybody's engaged in the action and the story the action is supporting.

(Trust me, I understand this issue pretty well, I had a game once where there was a Druid, complete with animal companion and a summoning focus, a malconvoker wizard, and a Fighter with a variant of the leadership feat that let him lead a small personal military strike force (3 men under him)

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:
...I think there is very little distinction between Leadership and an Animal companion...

Animal Companions can't craft magic items at cost. Animal Companions can't cast spells. They also can't become diplomacy skill monkeys. Those three examples, along with several others, make Animal Companions and Leadership very different in my mind.

Plus, I know my players and i know the types of shenanigans they'd try.

-Skeld


CourtFool wrote:

It is going to be more work no matter how you look at it. If you are willing to deal with that, then I suggest you have talk with your player and explain that a cohort is not just a puppet.

Taking something said earlier a little bit further, maybe everyone takes turns running the cohort that way everyone gets a fair share of the 'extra' time and the cohort is much less likely to be a puppet.

Bonus XPs for keeping the cohort 'in character'.

You have stated my key concerns exactly. More time for one player, consequently less for the other 5 at the table, and a puppet NPC that is more or less an animated weapon, or a wand with spells that renew each day. I'll have a talk with my player, who is a solid role player, and explain my concerns. I'm sure we can work something out. I don't want to make it so good that every player must take the leadership feat as soon as they are able.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm of the opinion that cohorts and the leadership feat isn't really a problem. Just make it known you expect your player not to take too much time with his turns, I would say the same thing to a Druid, Summoner, Conjurer or Cleric with the Leadership feat.


That what the stick is for.


I eliminated the Leadership Feat immediately in 3.0

For me, henchmen, hirelings and so forth are a matter of Role Playing. Adventurers are like musicians ... they will always attract a certain amount of interest. Better ones will attract more while highly skilled, financially successful ones even more yet.

PCs shouldn't need a feat to attract followers. All they need to do is advertise their successes and would-be henchmen will appear (keeping them is another matter, as is "false advertising").

There is no reason a 6th level Wizard shouldn't pick up a 2nd level "apprentice" plus an actual wizard-in-training. "Leadership" has nothing to do with it. Often, there are functions PCs don't wish to deal with, and in my campaigns its common for henchmen and cohorts to have Expert levels so that they can do the legwork of gathering information around town, offering sage advice, handling repairs of gear, researching in libraries and so forth, freeing PCs up to spend their precious Skill Points on things that keep them alive.

All this said, I tend to play with people who have a lot of DM-chops themselves, and have always gone the route of Player-Controlled NPCs. Granted, "Cohorts" and their stats are generated with significant oversight from myself, and are almost always on some sort of "point buy" that makes them slightly lesser than PCs. "Minions" and "henchmen" I'll often generate, though I'll give a pretty loose rein to Players with a really good sense of world-tone. Cohorts and minions do earn XP, but from a separate pool and they tend to lag PCs in total levels, though "ratio" will remain about the same.

A Cleric in our last campaign by about 14th level had a Cohort of about 6th level, a couple "camp guards" of 2nd, half a dozen men-at-arms, an archeologist-professor husband and a host of pages and "household staff". Did she need a leadership feat? Of course not. She was a Dame of the Realm, Sheriff and a Lord Warder of several baronial estates. As a ranking Cleric in the church she was actually assigned a cohort ("you have skills, now pass them along") and the rest was expected of someone in her position.

Did they all traipsing through dungeons with her? Of course not. But they did make and secure the camp, tend to mundane business, keep an ear open in town and so forth.

Sometimes these henchmen will support a PC's talents, and other times compliment them. For example, a high-level Ranger with few social skills might have a Rogue cohort who can hide with him, but also Gather Info around town. Sure, there might be a PC Rogue or Diplomat who takes the lead in questioning plot-NPCs, but sometimes you still need a little extra help, leg-work or have to tail more than one suspect.

Anyway, I leave it all up to Player control. Generally, the impact on the game is minimal, and they don't really "steal game-time" from Players. Granted, some choose not to go this route, but with my current campaign hitting 10th level soon, even the most reserved at our table are picking up minions.

FWIW,

Rez


In the groups I've played in the leadership feat has been used regularly, but with the cohorts and followers being left to operate in game business ventures. The cohorts aboslute loyalty makes them trustworthy to ensure you don't get screwed. Great for rogues who run a their own gang, but still head out on adventures with their buddies. On occasion a cohort may come along, but its typically rare and only if we have a player unable to make the session.

One way to control it is to have the PC fund the cohorts gear. Keeps it under control and if the player is the self centred type it leaves the cohort exposed to be picked off.

I'd be relucant to offer bonus xp for roleplaying with the cohort unless you're offering similiar such bonuses for other characters interacting with npcs.

Liberty's Edge

Cohorts are a sticky situation, for sure. That being said, they are a great way to shore up gaps in the party composition or do jobs that other players are not interested in.

Whenever I think about taking leadership, which is often, I always talk to my DM and other players first to make sure there are no objections. That is important because cohorts should get a share of the treasure (half share) and consume resources like healing spells.

Once that hurdle is crossed, there is the actual construction of the character. Some DM's don't care what you build (within certain limits), while others want to maintain tight control of the generation process. I prefer a middle ground where DM and player work out an appropriate theme and build the character together. Two heads are better than one, and you end up with an NPC that fits the player's needs and still fits into the DM's world concept.

The final problem is the issue of who controls the character. Generally, the cohort should be controlled by the player since the DM has enough to do already, but there should be circumstances where the DM may want to subtly guide the cohort's behavior (e.g. if the PC wants them to do something against their alignment or code). As long as the player isn't abusing the cohort, then there is no problem and the DM should keep their hands off.

So, basically, it comes down to cooperation and negotiation between the players and DM to make sure that everyone is getting their fun out of the game without anyone abusing the spirit of the rules. Pretty much like any other aspect of the game, I guess. :)

I hope the new GameMastery book will have an extensive section devoted to Leadership.


CourtFool wrote:

It is going to be more work no matter how you look at it. If you are willing to deal with that, then I suggest you have talk with your player and explain that a cohort is not just a puppet.

Taking something said earlier a little bit further, maybe everyone takes turns running the cohort that way everyone gets a fair share of the 'extra' time and the cohort is much less likely to be a puppet.

Bonus XPs for keeping the cohort 'in character'.

Also make the cohort a woman to cover the drastic moodswings issue

*goes in hiding*


Pappy wrote:
He is thinking of having his 9th level paladin pick up a cohort with a ranged weaponry specialization.

That's very interesting... my old school bones ache a bit when I hear "paladin" and "ranged" cohort though.

Not to diverge too much from your original question, I'm far more fascinated in the social / behavioral concerns raised by this scenario. For example, what if one (popular) member of this cohort really has some diverging views from the paladin's core beliefs.... stretching the boundaries of alignment or conduct. Delicious. ;)


I've never had a problem with cohorts in my games, but then my players are pretty mature and don't try to get one over on me. If I felt a cohort were getting out of hand I'd do something about it, but I haven't come across that yet.

I'm not a huge fan of the cohorts coming along in adventures unless they are filling some gap or minor role; a 'healbot,' or a tracker, or a rogue type.

But I've killed off enough cohorts for PCs to know to be careful with them. I remember one game at very high levels where two cohorts for two different PCs died at the same time to the same trap. That was quite a downer for the PCs. *evil grin*


I'm currently running a once-a-month campaign for 3 players, our first major foray into the Final PF ruleset.

In order to up the survivability of the party and also give everyone a taste of all the changes and how each class feels now, I had each player make their PC a gestalt character.

In addition to that, I've assembled a band of cohorts and followers I like to refer to as their "sidekicks". As it stands now, no one has taken any leadership feats, but the party has a growing group of followers accompanying them through their adventures.

Since the story is about the PCs and the sidekicks are just along to flesh out the story and bump up party survivability, they are only single classed and I am not tracking xp for them. As it stands, I have them locked 2 levels below the PCs. When the PCs gain a level, they gain a level. I level the sidekicks up, and at the start of each day, each PC selects one sidekick to take with them into battle. The rest of the sidekicks don't participate in combat for that day.

It has worked extremely well so far, giving each player 2 "at bats" per combat round and has given us a good exposure to a lot of the changes the PF ruleset introduced.

I think waving xp tracking on the sidekicks/cohorts and just setting a static level gap between them and the PCs was one of my better ideas, and it really serves to set the PCs apart as the real heroes. The sidekicks never outshine them, but they are super helpful to have around nonetheless.


Father Dale wrote:
...but then my players are pretty mature and don't try to get one over on me.

How many issues could be resolved with just this philosophy?


Skeld wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
...I think there is very little distinction between Leadership and an Animal companion...

Animal Companions can't craft magic items at cost. Animal Companions can't cast spells. They also can't become diplomacy skill monkeys. Those three examples, along with several others, make Animal Companions and Leadership very different in my mind.

Plus, I know my players and i know the types of shenanigans they'd try.

-Skeld

I am not talking in terms of power. I was speaking in terms of 'there is a difference between class features and leadership'. I dont see a huge distinction between an ability gained via a feat and an abilitiy gained via a class feature, given how much the two overlap. The paying for Hirelings on the other hand I see as something very reasonable for a DM to limit.


CourtFool wrote:
Father Dale wrote:
...but then my players are pretty mature and don't try to get one over on me.
How many issues could be resolved with just this philosophy?

So long as it goes both ways? Just about all of them. Even for underpowered classes, if your players are actually mature about it and are not trying to take advantage it's easy to develop houserules to even it out.


Just a quick word about the lengthy time needed to manage minions... er, I mean cohorts: if (or when) rules for large battles come out, we can make real use of them without detracting too much from one-character players.

And just a quick idea because I haven't read other books about mass combat: out of the game, mix all your cohorts to give a global set of actions (cast spells, fight, etc.) and a quick ruling for each (average BAB & damage, for instance). In-game, that would come out like a single companion.


Father Dale wrote:
I've never had a problem with cohorts in my games, but then my players are pretty mature and don't try to get one over on me.

I spoke with the player who wants to take the leadership feat last night. After our discussion where I stated my concerns, I am very confident that he is not trying to get one over me. Some of the other, younger players are more of a concern in this regard. I wonder about setting a precedent that will encourage our resident munchkin to try to abuse the feat.


It's just a way for a PC to be able to decide that they want a sidekick and a bunch of pals.

I've been in a lot of games where the DM is the person who controls the PC's organically gained cohorts. I've DMed a lot of games where I controlled the PC's organically gained cohorts. I won't lie-- a lot of the time I killed them off for dramatic effect, had them betray the PCs or made up dramatic backstories for them.

Leadership is just a way to say that the PC wants friends, they have a high charisma and their character would like to run a group of followers. It can also mean "I'd like to have a boy sidekick that comes with me on my forays for justice... that the DM won't kill with a claw hammer" or "I'd like my character to bring his girlfriend along on adventures as a team, without the threat of her being cut up and stuffed in a refridgerator."

Liberty's Edge

Pappy wrote:


I spoke with the player who wants to take the leadership feat last night. After our discussion where I stated my concerns, I am very confident that he is not trying to get one over me. Some of the other, younger players are more of a concern in this regard. I wonder about setting a precedent that will encourage our resident munchkin to try to abuse the feat.

Maybe this is an excellent opportunity for the player to lead by example. If the rest of the group sees how you expect a player with a cohort NPC behave, perhaps they'll learn from it.


Pappy wrote:
I wonder about setting a precedent that will encourage our resident munchkin to try to abuse the feat.

Really the problem there isn't the precedent, it's the resident munchkin. He is going to find something to abuse, whether it is this or something else. I believe the only way to fix that problem is to discuss with the player.

In my experience, munchkins want to 'win'. You just need to get him to see that if he 'wins' every time without breaking a sweat, the game gets very boring, very quickly. It is in his own interest (read fun) to be willing to be challenged occasionally. It is also in his best interest not to lay the total responsibility of challenging his character on you. Yes, it is the GM's responsibility to challenge the PCs, but the players should not make that job uncomfortably difficult. GMs want to have fun too. How fun is it to constantly have to plan your entire adventure around Mr. Awesome? It is also in the munchkin's best interest not to regulate all of the other players to supporting cast.

Essentially, he can 'win' himself right out of a group. If he works with you, you can still challenge him, he still has opportunities to 'win' and everyone gets a chance to shine.


I_Use_Ref_Discretion wrote:
... my old school bones ache a bit when I hear "paladin" and "ranged" cohort though.

"Old school"? Give me a break. 1st Edition AD&D had "crossbow" on the Paladin weapon list.

I revoke your fake Grognard credentials.

R.


BQ wrote:
One way to control it is to have the PC fund the cohorts gear.

Not starting gear, but cohorts come in with NPC rather than PC value. Players usually want to bump that before long. Cohorts get all their hand-me-downs.

BQ wrote:
I'd be relucant to offer bonus xp for roleplaying with the cohort unless you're offering similiar such bonuses for other characters interacting with npcs.

I routinely cut all Combat XP in half, then make up the balance with RPXP. Interactions with NPCs, tactical planning, group discussions all factor in (as well as bonuses for playing IC) so that aspect is covered. Since someone RPing a cohort takes away from time RPing their PC, it comes out, or perhaps even drags a little XP off the PC and into the cohort.

My Players definitely get invested in their Cohorts, develop personalities and backstories, and know that an Area Effect they can shrug off will lay their minions flat. In a recent pirate-fighting arc, they mostly kept them below-decks for the "Champion-level" battles.

FWIW,

Rez


Pappy wrote:
Father Dale wrote:
I've never had a problem with cohorts in my games, but then my players are pretty mature and don't try to get one over on me.
I spoke with the player who wants to take the leadership feat last night. After our discussion where I stated my concerns, I am very confident that he is not trying to get one over me. Some of the other, younger players are more of a concern in this regard. I wonder about setting a precedent that will encourage our resident munchkin to try to abuse the feat.

Well if you trust the player who is wanting to take leadership now, he might end up setting a GOOD example for your group in how cohorts are to be handled.

I wouldn't suggest running the cohort yourself. Thats one more thing for you to deal with when you already have enough on your plate. Having another PC run it isn't a bad idea, as long as the two players get along well; it would at least cut down on the PC and cohort using perfectly coordinated tactics. But then you run the danger of the PC who takes the leadership feat feeling cheated, in that he doesn't actually get to use his cohort, and you would want to avoid that as well.

I'd probably suggest just letting the PC have the cohort and running it, then see how things play out. Always remember that the cohort is still an NPC, and you can at any time 'take control' of the cohort if the player isn't having the cohort act appropriately. If it doesn't work out after all, then have the cohort leave and let the player pick another feat in place of leadership.


If you do choose to incorporate cohorts via leadership it's important to make sure that a player doesn't use the cohort as a way of stealing face time from other players.

For instance I'm very reluctant to include diplomacy specialists as cohorts in a game because invariably the diplomat cohort is making up for bad social skills on the part of the primary character. If a player wants to play the "face" character he should do it with his primary not his proxy character. Diplo-cohorts also reduce the amount of interaction the other players have with NPCs. If the cohort can diplomance the NPCs into friendly why does the party need to roleplay an encounter?

I'm also very reluctant to include cohorts that are comparable or superior to another PC in some major area. If one PC is a melee combat character without a ton of optimization I'm going to be reluctant to allow a cohort to be a char-op spiked chain trip master.

One thing I would be tempted to include is that cohorts should be built with a lower stat buy than the PCs. Thus if the PCs are 20 point buy maybe the cohort should be 15 point buy, etc. This ensures that cohorts are going to be qualitatively inferior to the PCs on other issues than just level.

That being said if your campaign has high PC mortality cohorts that can step in and be replacement characters can be remarkably useful and avoids the problems with "Let's go into town and pick up a new rogue".


Remember, the DM has the final say on any NPCs behavior. This goes for animal companions as well as cohorts. It works best when the DM intentionally leaves the limits vague. A lot of players will push the rules right to their limits, but if they don't know exactly where the line is, it makes it a lot harder to push the boundary.


Rezdave wrote:
I_Use_Ref_Discretion wrote:
... my old school bones ache a bit when I hear "paladin" and "ranged" cohort though.
"Old school"? Give me a break. 1st Edition AD&D had "crossbow" on the Paladin weapon list.

And in Unearthed Arcana, the paladin became a subclass of the Cavalier, with absolutely no ranged weapons allowed.


Arakhor wrote:
Rezdave wrote:
I_Use_Ref_Discretion wrote:
... my old school bones ache a bit when I hear "paladin" and "ranged" cohort though.
"Old school"? Give me a break. 1st Edition AD&D had "crossbow" on the Paladin weapon list.
And in Unearthed Arcana, the paladin became a subclass of the Cavalier, with absolutely no ranged weapons allowed.

Heh, plenty of Old School players still curse the introduction of Unearthed Arcana with it's increased demihuman level caps, weapon specialization and dubious class balance. Seriously the cavalier was like fighter ++. Oh and the barbarian class that can't really function in a group with arcane casters :|


oh kinda related, one of my players gets the improved familiar feat, actually he got his hands on a tome filled with dark knowledge, demons, devils and summonings.

Now I figured this tome would give him the ability to summon an imp or quasit to replace his familiar.

The party is generally good / neutral aligned, though no paladins or highly religious members, anyone has some suggestions to make it an interesting addition ?


Rezdave wrote:
I_Use_Ref_Discretion wrote:
... my old school bones ache a bit when I hear "paladin" and "ranged" cohort though.

"Old school"? Give me a break. 1st Edition AD&D had "crossbow" on the Paladin weapon list.

I revoke your fake Grognard credentials.

Arakhor wrote:
And in Unearthed Arcana, the paladin became a subclass of the Cavalier, with absolutely no ranged weapons allowed.

Rezdave, I guess you give me no choice but to revoke your revoking ability. ;)

Dark Archive

There was a time when it was not about being able to use any weapon because the player just "feels" like it. The 1st ed pally was about honor and chivalry, and it did get reinforced in the original UA.

Again, it was only in latter editions that you got dark elf pally, or optimized ranged pally. Anyway I agree, Rezdave your ability to use grognard, or to revoke have now been revoked.

I should just double check with the secret committee in the secret longest thread first, just to make it official.


vuron wrote:

If you do choose to incorporate cohorts via leadership it's important to make sure that a player doesn't use the cohort as a way of stealing face time from other players.

...

I totally agree. This was one of the items that I discussed with the PC taking leadership. We have decided to have him take care of the cohort, which I have emphasized needs to be more fleshed out than just some dude with a bow who shoots when I say so. We also kicked around the idea of having other PCs take turn running the cohort in combat, but I agree that this takes away some of the fun from the "leadership" PC. Outside of combat, I will run the cohort, but she will not be an obvious railroad tool. Any DM worth his salt will know how that will end up.

I also emphasized that the cohort needs to be run efficiently in combat. Other PCs will not have patience for the "double turn" guy in the long run.

Starting equipment will be at the heroic NPC level. The PC understands that I expect that the cohort will get some of the treasure awarded. He also understands that the NPC is not a suicidal maniac and will not willinging put themselves at mortal risk at the whim of the party.

Liberty's Edge

Pappy wrote:
...said some stuff...

Sounds like you've got everything under control. Laying out the ground rules like that was a good call. Good luck to ya!

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / DM suggestions for managing cohorts? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.