| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cohorts are rewarded by the Leader, not the Party. Cohorts should never get a share of the loot, ever.
Any Leader who is foolish enough to risk his Cohort in an encounter will/should eventually have to deal with a dead Cohort.
I would not force the players to share loot with a cohort. Payment is for hirelings, cohorts are starry-eyed youngsters that idolize their leader.
As to your problem, have you considered banning leadership but then allowing them to attract cohorts via the 3.5 rules? If you did it that way you would get more control over what the cohorts demand, how they behave, and your players would not feel like they wasted a feat on an NPC who follows the GM's whims.
As to allowing leadership in its entirety, I am a terrible judge on its adjudication and cannot suggest anything particularly helpful in that regard.
As to allowing leadership in its entirety, I am a terrible judge on its adjudication and cannot suggest anything particularly helpful in that regard.
Leadership is fine as long as there is proper oversight. As I said earlier, the Leader should be mindful that his Cohort lags 2-3 levels behind the Party. This means that he's fragile. You absolutely have to make that clear to the Leader.
What I have usually done.
PC takes leadership feat
1A) to make a cohort of someone or something they have already encountered peacefully or made peace with.
OR
1B) player tells me what they are looking for in fairly general terms. Example: "I'm looking for a highly survivable paladin bodyguard." If the party is curently adventuring on the Plane of Fire and he wants a Treant Monk, he's probably out of luck.
2) I make decent NPC that matches their description as closely as I think is reasonable for the area they are currently in or someone that could have reasonably been in an area they were previously and followed them. I use one step lower for the point buy of abilities than the PC's used. I will make a decent build, but I won't try to optimize it to the nth degree. I usually (though not always) give him gear as if he was one level lower than he is. If he was rich, powerful, and successful on his own why would he become a cohort?
{ There are exceptions for this. Say the PC is in a large elvish community that he just helped save from a marauding minitaur army so that they are local famous heros. If the PC is looking for something fairly common in that local, Elvish Archer. I will give him a better NPC than if he had asked for the same thing somewhere that it is not reasonable. Might up the wealth, pay a little more detail to the build, or bump his point buy a little bit.
3) PC has to decide how much of his own take he is giving to his cohort RP the negotiation if any with the cohort (I don't usually drag this out too long unless everyone is having fun with it).
4) Sometimes the group decides to give the cohort something as a reward or because he can make the best use of it. But I, as GM, don't get involved in that.
5) When the cohort advances, I will make his choices. But I will usually follow what the PC requests unless it doesn't make sense for him or the PC has been treating him badly.
The above normally keep the cohort from taking center stage (except in very odd situations) while still being useful.
It doesn't seem to throw off the power calculations too badly either.
I generally follow Kydeem's approach though I tend to let the player choose the options for the cohort.
Loot division is a question of the player. Though I typically bump the loot up so the npc can get its appropriate wealth. However this comes with the understanding that I do this for that express purpose and attempts to basically cut the npc off rom the wealth that he's helping to gather will eventually disillusion and eventually cause him to be disgruntled and leave. That is if he isn't killed first.
I tend to have a few rules myself with leadership,
Cohorts are fine to travel with and fight along side the leader, they know just as well as a party of adventurers know that anything could kill them at any time.
Cohorts travel, to follow and to learn from their leader. If a cohort is trying to learn how to protect 'base camp' then having him stay back while everyone else goes off to fight is perfectly fine, but a cohort has their own motivations and thoughts and feelings, you leave anyone in one spot for too long and they will start to move around.
Because the cohort is welcomed to shadow the leader that is his main pay, he follows and learns so he doesn't get a cut of the party treasure, but no cohort will stick around for long if you don't give him something. Its up to the rest of the party to decide to split that bill if they want but if not then the leader must give some of his cut of party treasure to the cohort.
A cohort will eventually move on, I play this out as every level gain the player can decide if he wants a new cohort or if he would like to keep the one he has. A cohort will level once the party levels, I don't find this too game breaking and it helps keep the party together on leveling up.
Followers do not travel. If your character wants to start a town or the like a follower can be used as an important lead person in the town but a follower will not adventure with the group at all
A cohort cannot have the leadership feat
I leave it up to the players to decide how to divide up shares and whether or not to include cohorts in the sharing of loot. Generally, the sentiment at the table I run is that the cohort is the responsibility of their leader - and that includes any share of the treasure. If you want to take your cohort adventuring and doing more than watching the camp, it's your own job to properly equip them. It's one of the prices you pay for having an extra helper around.
... A cohort cannot have the leadership feat
I say it as the cohort could decide to take the leadership feat. But then he is a leader not a cohort/follower, so he leaves the PC to start his own group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Treasure-splitting is an in-character, in game issue, IMO. It's hardly unreasonable for the party members, who are doing better w/ the addition of the cohort, to grant a share or partial share of the treasure to a participant in the adventure.
The Cohort may be a participant, but it's not an Adventurer. It's a Feat. You want to talk about stealing from the Party, this is it. No one asked you to take Leadership, you did so for your own gain. Unless you're pimping it out, the Party shouldn't pay for his services.
Cohorts aren't Adventurers, so they shouldn't get a cut. They should get a portion of their Leader's cut.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cohorts aren't Adventurers, so they shouldn't get a cut. They should get a portion of their Leader's cut.
If the party wants to look at it that way that's their business.
Perception is everything in this case. For you he's just a feat. For the group he's a guy who's following you around, sharing the danger with a family and responsibilities to the group just like you.
He might not feel disgruntled at the idea of getting lesser wealth but he might not want to stick around as dangers increase. It's one thing to be weaker then your fellows. It's another to be weaker then your fellows, poorly equipped, and watching as those stronger fellows and demanding you bug another person for their share because they don't see you as an "adventurer".
Unless all the cohorts in your group are mindless synchophantic drones who willingly throw themselves into the dragons mouth in an effort to choke it to death.
For you he's just a feat.
I see where you're going and I'm going to stop you right there. The Leadership feat is abused because players and GMs alike forget that fact. The Cohort is a feat, nothing more and nothing less.
For the group he's a guy who's following you around, sharing the danger with a family and responsibilities to the group just like you.
Except he's not just like you. He's a tool, with a personality. The Cohort has no loyalty to anyone in the group, expect for his Leader. When the Leader dies or leaves the group, does the Cohort stay with them? No, he doesn't. He's not a member of the party. He's a NPC who is receptive to the commands of his Leader, not the Party.
If the Superfriends were an adventuring party, should Robin get a share, or is he paid out of Batman share? The party as a whole is better off with Robin there. In theory, at least.
You want to debate Batman and Robin? Oy... Robin is a Sidekick and I'm pretty sure that's a different mechanic than the Pathfinder Leadership feat.
/ If the Batman bites it for good, then Robin probably becomes a Super Hero in his own right. Why is that? Because comics are written by a person who isn't constrained by an RPG rules set.
Edit
// Also, once the Batman is deceased, I'm sure that Robin will finally get to wear pants again.
many player character groups decide in character to treat the cohort as an additional person not a tool owned by one PC.
And that's where the abuse of the feat comes in. You forget that the Cohort isn't a Party member, rather he a very loyal follower of one PC in particular.
Play as you will, of course. I've never wavered from that statement. I am cautioning that in this case, you're treating the Cohort in a manner that was not intended.
... And that's where the abuse of the feat comes in. You forget that the Cohort isn't a Party member, rather he a very loyal follower of one PC in particular.
Play as you will, of course. I've never wavered from that statement. I am cautioning that in this case, you're treating the Cohort in a manner that was not intended.
I never saw any abuse. So I'm not sure what you are talking about. To that group, he WAS a Party Member (secondary standing of course but still a member). If I had demanded the group pay a salary or portion for my cohort: then yes, that would be abuse of the feat. That didn't happen. I don't see what the problem is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure everyone here is aware of the Crafty Wizard thread, and that's relevant to this topic as well.
Though you may not like that the Crafty Wizard refuses to use his feat to make half-off magic items for you, there is still a choice. Your PC can choose not to trade with the Crafty Wizard and use other avenues to acquire magic times.
If Leadership is treated the way Chob and others suggest, then the rest of the Party pays for one PC's feat choice whether they want to or not.
That's not cool. No, Mr. Leader, I don't want to give your Cohort, who is only loyal to you, a full cut of treasure. I didn't take that feat, you did. You deal with it.
I never saw any abuse. So I'm not sure what you are talking about. To that group, he WAS a Party Member (secondary standing of course but still a member). If I had demanded the group pay a salary or portion for my cohort: then yes, that would be abuse of the feat. That didn't happen. I don't see what the problem is.
I'm sorry - I'm unclear here; did this secondary Party member receive a cut of Party treasure? If he did, then you were, in effect, stealing from the other players who didn't choose that feat. And that's cool if you all agreed on it, of course.
I'm curious as to what way you think I'm suggesting it be handled, such that your statement above is true.
You said...
If the Superfriends were an adventuring party, should Robin get a share, or is he paid out of Batman share? The party as a whole is better off with Robin there. In theory, at least.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you fight a baddie w/ Leadership, you don't get extra XP, just like when you fight a demon who summons another demon - its part of the build. Same w/ cohorts; they're accessories of the character with Leadership. Yes, they benefit the party, but so does my combat feat or my meta magic feat. You want to be a Leader, cool, do it, but you don't get extra treasure for it or get to soak up my XP by dividing by 7 instead of 6.
I've had a lot of Cohorts in my games, and I always set things up, as the GM, so treasure is not an issue. Most often, the Cohort makes it clear they don't think they are contributing enough to the group (as they are lower level) to deserve a full share.
Other times, they have some specific reason not to take a share of initial loot (I had a pacifist cleric healer cohort in one game who thought it would violate her ethics to take spoils of war).
Others are hirelings (just really competent and loyal ones), who are under contract to do a job for a set wage, paid by the character who took leadership.
And in any case, my players almost always want to equip other PCs' cohorts, to make the group stronger. One common tactic is hand-me-downs. When the Fighter gets a +3 ring of protection, he gives his old +2 ring of protection to the cleric's cohort.
As far as to what's fair "in character," are people claiming the cohort should get a full share giving the same share to the druid's animal companion, paladin's horse, and wizard's familiar? They share the same risks, and the familiar at least is intelligent.
Give the player the option to generate his own Cohort, as per the rules, and make sure that he puts a role playing effort into the relation. If he treat him like an Eidolon or summoned monster, let the player suffer the consequences. Loosing a Cohort (death) permanently deteriorates the Leadership score.
A way to ensure that the roleplaying is up to standards, is to have the player write stories (around half a page to a page) for a number of adventures before he get to the level where he can get the cohort. Have him continue to write at least a story every two gaming sessions, to keep the NPC vibrant and fleshed out. If he fails to write the stories, start penalizing his Leadership score, -1 pr. Missed story (for that NPC only). He can gain the full Leadership back by writing suficient stories, but he has to do so before the Cohort leaves him because of low leadership score.
Make sure the stories are for all the players (by mail, Dropbox, or whathaveyou).
This way, the Cohort will enrich the party with character depth, increasing the immersion into the story telling, and by far outweigh the added work.
With regards to wealth, remember NPCs has wealth by lvl, have this wealth appear without effort, and permit that the player can spend some of his own wealth on the Cohort. The Cohort will be underequipped compared to a party member, but can still be an addition.
Don't prohibit, help the players perform. Cohorts can be fantastic, if they are used smart in combat and well in roleplaying. But people have learn and to practice, and as a DM it is up to you to be a part of that :-)
Cohorts aren't Adventurers, so they shouldn't get a cut. They should get a portion of their Leader's cut.
If the party wants to look at it that way that's their business.
Perception is everything in this case. For you he's just a feat. For the group he's a guy who's following you around, sharing the danger with a family and responsibilities to the group just like you.
He might not feel disgruntled at the idea of getting lesser wealth but he might not want to stick around as dangers increase. It's one thing to be weaker then your fellows. It's another to be weaker then your fellows, poorly equipped, and watching as those stronger fellows and demanding you bug another person for their share because they don't see you as an "adventurer".
Unless all the cohorts in your group are mindless synchophantic drones who willingly throw themselves into the dragons mouth in an effort to choke it to death.
when somebody ask a knight to join their grouo to save the world, they don't expect the squire to get a full payment too. They are hiring thr cavalier, and the cavalier is entitled to have any cohort, if he wants so, but has to pay for him.
Just a question: do you share treasure with he mage imp or mephit too? He is as much an intelligent being as most paladins are. Probably more intelligent.
as the player in question, I would like to flesh out DrRant's post a bit.
The story is that he created was that Brienne, elf, was a Royal Guard that was captured by giants and we the party rescued. DrRant gave me the stat array, and told me that her goal is to become an Eldritch Knight. So based on that, I figured that her first goal as a guard was to be fairly viable in combat, therefore i gave her 5 levels of fighter, and 2 levels of wizard with the understanding that I, the wizard, would take her as my apprentice and guide her further on her journey toward her goal. She will start the role of EK at level 10, she is lvl 7 now.
Considering her previous job, i gave her a few things that, in our current situation, will be useless. She has Weap Focus elven curved blade, which we dont have, because as a royal guard i figured that the preferred weapon would be that. I gave her power attack and improved sunder, PA as a pre-req, figuring that as a fighter trained to defend someone else, she would attempt to incapacitate someone as quickly as possible and imo making a guy naked and cold staring at person who did it would pretty much do that. I also gave her the bodyguard feat, which was purely for flavor, but hey, it might come in handy. Also, considering her desire to be a self buffer, i gave her the Transmutation school considering that is where alot of the self buffs are, Cat's Grace et al.
I've also offered to DrRant a few other things for her, such as paying her a stipend from my portion of the loot, making her stand guard over me in battle and therefore not entering the fray unless something approaches me or threatens me.
her feats are as follows: Weap Focus ECB, Power Attack, Imp Sunder, Combat Reflexes, Bodyguard, Weap Specialization, and arcane armor training.
her bonded item is a Royal Guard Signet and her school is Transmutation, opposed by Divination and Necromancy
I removed some posts and the replies to them. Don't pick fights.
unclepaul wrote:
2 nd if a cohort is part of a battle they gain a half share of exp for themselves
Dragon is worth 400 the cohort would get 50 pts then everyone would get to divide 350 pts between 4 people.
A cohort getting exp from out of the air makes no sense to me. And using them in battle should cost something.
Out of combat the cohort gain exp like normal when the main character gains exp at the rate listed in the book
seems like b#~#&@!# to me. Basically it seems like he's trying to get the other players to rebel against me having a cohort, or force me to leave her out of combat. Opinions?
Btw i guess my offering to outfit and pay the cohort money out of my share of the loot doesnt count as a 'cost'. Neither does me using a feat count as a 'cost'.
when somebody ask a knight to join their grouo to save the world, they don't expect the squire to get a full payment too. They are hiring thr cavalier, and the cavalier is entitled to have any cohort, if he wants so, but has to pay for him.
Just a question: do you share treasure with he mage imp or mephit too? He is as much an intelligent being as most paladins are. Probably more intelligent.
An interesting point to make. And at least valid in the sense that improved familiar requires at least as much investment as leadership.
But again, this mostly depends upon the group. I don't often have wizards complaining there mephits are falling behind on magic arms and armor. Even as a wizard or sorcerer or paladin with eldritch heritage do I find a burning need to make sure my bird is thoroughly well equipped.
It's also a question of fragility and purpose too.
I imagine in loaba's games cohorts tend to turn into the craft slaves he seems to hate.
With regards to wealth, remember NPCs has wealth by lvl, have this wealth appear without effort, and permit that the player can spend some of his own wealth on the Cohort. The Cohort will be underequipped compared to a party member, but can still be an addition.
This is the approach I take. And thus far it's worked.
In my group, cohorts get half a share.
To expect a player, or character to give up a significant portion of his own wealth for a companion that benefits the whole group is ludicrous.
And a Cohort is not "just a feat." You can't just pick up Leadership and get a cohort. You need express permission from the GM. The feat is merely the tax for a role playing experience allowed to you by the GM. A Cohort is a member of the party just like any other character.
[when somebody ask a knight to join their grouo to save the world, they don't expect the squire to get a full payment too. They are hiring thr cavalier, and the cavalier is entitled to have any cohort, if he wants so, but has to pay for him.
Just a question: do you share treasure with he mage imp or mephit too? He is as much an intelligent being as most paladins are. Probably more intelligent.
This is a good point, but if the party invites the twin brothers Caramon the Fighter and Raistlin the Wizard, do they expect them to split a share? What if one of them were significantly more powerful than the other.
|
For you he's just a feat.I see where you're going and I'm going to stop you right there. The Leadership feat is abused because players and GMs alike forget that fact. The Cohort is a feat, nothing more and nothing less.
For the group he's a guy who's following you around, sharing the danger with a family and responsibilities to the group just like you.Except he's not just like you. He's a tool, with a personality. The Cohort has no loyalty to anyone in the group, expect for his Leader. When the Leader dies or leaves the group, does the Cohort stay with them? No, he doesn't. He's not a member of the party. He's a NPC who is receptive to the commands of his Leader, not the Party.
If that is the sentiment at your table the cohort should not heal, buff or help anyone beside his leader as he is a feat of the leader, not a person.
"He is right here, in my equipment."
I'm sure everyone here is aware of the Crafty Wizard thread, and that's relevant to this topic as well.
Though you may not like that the Crafty Wizard refuses to use his feat to make half-off magic items for you, there is still a choice. Your PC can choose not to trade with the Crafty Wizard and use other avenues to acquire magic times.
If Leadership is treated the way Chob and others suggest, then the rest of the Party pays for one PC's feat choice whether they want to or not.
That's not cool. No, Mr. Leader, I don't want to give your Cohort, who is only loyal to you, a full cut of treasure. I didn't take that feat, you did. You deal with it.
The party has no obligation to accept the follower as a party member and bring him along on adventures, so the player taking the leadership feat has no way to "force" the other party members to pay for his follower. They can always refuse to bring him with them. On the flip side of the coin if the party accept to bring along the follower and use his talents it is a good idea if they decide beforehand if and how he should be rewarded.
There is no abuse in that. I don't get what kind of scenario you have experienced to develop this mentality but it is a bit unusual, at least in my experience.
My experience is "Hey guys, we need a cleric and no one want to play one, I will take the leadership feat and get our party cleric."
Ok, I didn't address the xp issue in my earlier posts. It had not occured to me. If there is an encounter (violent or peaceful) in which the cohort meaningfully contributes, he gets a half share of xps. I have never noticed anyone having a problem with that. Except in the 1 instance where everyone took the leadership feat and had a cohort, we did notice that it was slowing down the party's advancement. But that was everyone.
In my groups (either as player or as GM) the person taking the leadership feat is the one responsible for the cohort's pay.
However, sometimes the group has decided to give the cohort a share of loot (groups decision not the PC with the feat) either because IN CHARACTER they are generous, free-wheeling, hippie wannabees or because IN CHARACTER the contribution is so great they want that cohort to stay alive and effective (primary healer when the group no longer had one).
This is a good point, but if the party invites the twin brothers Caramon the Fighter and Raistlin the Wizard, do they expect them to split a share? What if one of them were significantly more powerful than the other.[when somebody ask a knight to join their grouo to save the world, they don't expect the squire to get a full payment too. They are hiring thr cavalier, and the cavalier is entitled to have any cohort, if he wants so, but has to pay for him.
Just a question: do you share treasure with he mage imp or mephit too? He is as much an intelligent being as most paladins are. Probably more intelligent.
when they invite them, they can accept or not. Cohorts obey (except suicide orders). Those temporal allies might betray the party (Raistlin will do, actually), and they do have personal interests that might not include the players. Caramon might go to defend Raistlin instead of giving the rogue player a much needed flanking, for example. If both Raistlin and a PC are dying at -9 hp, Caramon will use his action to give a potion to his brother. A cohort do not. He is ultimately loyal to the PC, like Robin is with Batman or Iolus wih Hercules.
Even more important: the cohort IS under the PC leadership. Be it a wizard apprentice, a squire, a bodyguard or a chronicler bard that write up the hero story. Squires DONT get a share of spoils, they are paid by his master. When you hire a gentleman, his majordomo, if he wants to have one, is paid by him. When I party with your high level wizard, is him who I want to fight along with me. His imp, or the low level apprentice that make potions and scrolls is not my business. They can come with us, as far as they pay their rations, pull their own weight, and do not impede us. Their wage is your matter, though.
When you fight a baddie w/ Leadership, you don't get extra XP, just like when you fight a demon who summons another demon - its part of the build. Same w/ cohorts; they're accessories of the character with Leadership.
If I used the Leadership feat or XP (I don't use either), I sure as shootin' would add extra XP for fighting a cohort in addition.
Riddle me this: Suppose the PCs fought a bunch of cohorts (only) while the "main" NPCs were off in some other location. Should that encounter give them 0 XP?
nevermind
Worded badly what I think he meant is more along the lines of:
"When you fight a baddie and you have the leadership feat, you don't get..."
I've certainly seen (and disagreed with) people who suggest that an NPC with Leadership and a cohort is not worth any more XP than the same NPC without Leadership and without a cohort.
I thought further on the animal companion, familiar, eidolon argument.
I think the difference is underlying mechanics.
Animal Companions, Eidolons, and Familiars are based on the idea that the respective class their attached to will provide everything in terms of equipment. They're easily replaceable and there are whole threads on the subjeect of suicide bombing eidolons, animal companion abuse, and familiar replacement. It's a given. Therefore I don't think this line of argument is going to work.
Generally speaking the replacement, statistics, backstory, etc. are almost entirely dependent on GM control with PC input. Plus they do not follow the rules of either of the three mention above. Rather they follow the NPC rules. What this means is that they follow whatever guidlines the gm uses for npc's.
And you know what? By RAW npc's get their own WBL. It's significantly less than PC's and they're significantly less powerful than PC's but that's generally the expectation.
I wonder if the better idea might not be to simply remove the question from the pc's hands if they feel like they've inherited a leech adn automatically upgrade the gear at appropriate levels (sans consumables) I wonder how acceptable that would be to some people?
That's why I said edited to nevermind.
I reread it a couple of times and I can see it either way. So I'm really not sure which he meant anymore. But when I read it the first time, I thought he meant you had it not your opponent.