|
It seems my group is not of like mind when one of us fielded a cohort in our most recent game, and said they should get a fair share of treasure earned.
I'll try to present the argument in a neutral manner as I'm involved in the debate, but I'd like to hear your side of this issue, and perhaps how your group deals with this issue.
The IC debate:
It was argued that someone joining the party, regardless if they are not "the PC", should indeed get a share of loot as they are at risk just like the PCs and are working to help. The argument offered was: she is participating in combat, faces all the same challenges a PC does and should get a reward cut as well.
The OOC debate:
One player has his cohort, so the party(some of) feel he is getting extra loot, due to the one player effectively fielding 2 characters. One of the other players had issue with another player getting effectively 1.5 shares or possibly 2 shares due to this.
I find it hard to argue the IC vrs OOC as it's two different beasts, so I'm looking for the best solution to quell both sides and keep it fair.
How should the players handle this? Both in game and out of game. Is there even a compromise that works for both scenarios?
The cohort is a "junior" member of the party (since he's at least two levels behind the PCs), so I don't see why he should get a full share.
Having said that, it should be O.K. to give the cohort some kind of share PROVIDED that it's actually the cohort using the loot and he's not "lending" it to his "boss" (effectively giving the "boss" PC more than a full share).
The best solution? Get rid of the Leadership feat: if NPCs want to hang around with the party, that's cool, but one PC shouldn't be the "owner" of an NPC, IMO.
(By the way, this is probably the wrong forum.)
That's an interesting issue. From an in-game perspective, I'd be tempted to argue that the cohort is the responsibility of the character with the Leadership feat, and as such should be outfitted out of the character's share of treasure. That said, the corollary to that is that the rest of the PCs shouldn't expect any aid from the cohort. No healing spells, potions, or even aid in combat unless specifically directed by the character with the Leadership feat. The problem with this is that it's probably going to exacerbate the ongoing tension in the group over it.
One thing to remember is that the GM is probably adjusting the challenge levels of encounters (and by extension, the treasure) to account for the cohort's presence. As such, the party probably isn't actually losing out on any treasure, so from that point of view, I'd probably give the cohort a share of treasure commensurate with his level. If you do it this way, I'd probably get the GM to take control of the cohort when treasure is being divided up to ensure that the cohort selects treasure in his best interests, rather than that of the controlling character.
At the end of the day, I probably give the cohort a separate share of the treasure, but I'd get the GM to assert that he is adding sufficient extra treasure so as not to deprive the other PCs of anything they would have normally received.
CR
Creative Director
|
Cohorts are a mixed bag. On one hand, the concept of having a sidekick or a squire or a romantic interest or a slave or simply a hired mercenary's a trope that should be in the game. The Leadership feat actually works really quite well at quantifying something like this. I actually prefer the method where, as a result of roleplay, a PC might attract a follower, but that can get tricky if you've got a lot of numbers-oriented players who are concerned with equality of balance.
In games I've been invovled in, the cohort's generally gotten a half-share of treasure, and is on a separate experience track from the PCs. So; the PCs get less treasure overall, but don't lose out on any XP and gain another helper in battles to boot. It's certainly something that a group needs to decide for themselves... as part of the overall "How do we split up loot" conversation. That's not really something that, I think, the game really needs to have a hard and fast rule for.
As a side note, I wouldn't mind seeing something like this added to the Leadership feat:
"Adding a cohort to a game complicates things by effectively giving the character who takes the Leadership feat a second turn to act every combat round. Since the time spent in a session doesn't increase once a cohort is added, this essentially means that characters without cohorts have less time per session to play. In larger parties, the gap between turns in combat can be strained beyond the breaking point by adding a cohort. As a result, you should know your comfort level with the number of players you want at your table; 4 or 5 is about right, in my opinion. If adding a cohort brings the total number of CHARACTERS above this limit, you should not allow the cohort to accompany the PCs on adventures."
|
The IC debate:
It was argued that someone joining the party, regardless if they are not "the PC", should indeed get a share of loot as they are at risk just like the PCs and are working to help. The argument offered was: she is participating in combat, faces all the same challenges a PC does and should get a reward cut as well.
My views on the Leadership feat are well-known, and I'd go further even than Hogarth.
If the cohort is acting to the benefit of the whole party, then not only should he get a treasure share of his own (maybe proportional to his relative level), but he should be sharing the xp as well.Adding bodies to the party makes the adventure easier, assuming they are able to meaningfully contribute.
If he were a PC of lower level, he'd be taking part of the xp.
[sarcasm]Yet, because he has an 'N' prefix, on the hypothetical 'PC Health Bar' that floats above the heads of everyone in any good game [/end sarcasm], then not only do the PCs get FULL xp for their easier victory, but the party gets FREE 'phantom xp' shovelled on top, to give to the extra members, equal to;
{Party Level -2}/{Party Level} * {xp gained by one PC} * {No of NPCs}
This is just counter-intuitive.
"Make your encounters easier, and get more xp!"
It's a meta-gaming, XP-factory exploit.
My views on the Leadership feat are well-known, and I'd go further even than Hogarth.
If the cohort is acting to the benefit of the whole party, then not only should he get a treasure share of his own (maybe proportional to his relative level), but he should be sharing the xp as well.
Sorry, Snorter, but I go even further than that. I toss XP out the window altogether, and characters go up a level when I say they do. That neatly bypasses the issue of whether NPCs get a share of XP or not, because no one gets XP. :-)
|
|
That's fine too; there's lots of DMs do that, hence the removal of xp costs for casting and crafting, as it removes the need to micro-manage every point.
The general point remains, though; do you consider the addition of extra bodies to the party (with the resulting extra hit point buffer, and actions/round) makes the adventure easier, and thus, should result in slower advancement?
Maybe it's my 1st-Edition experiences showing through, but it was common to see parties of mixed levels. A thief, with his skills, could earn xp fastest of all, and could gain the 2501 xp to reach level 3, long before the wizard (who was generally a yellow-bellied coward, not having the option of defensive casting) could scrape together the same 2501 xp to stagger to level 2.
Throw in the old split-xp multi-classing rules, and old-style undead level-drain, and you could often see discrepancies of 3 levels, even 4.
But all those PCs were considered full party-members.
That's fine too; there's lots of DMs do that, hence the removal of xp costs for casting and crafting, as it removes the need to micro-manage every point.
The general point remains, though; do you consider the addition of extra bodies to the party (with the resulting extra hit point buffer, and actions/round) makes the adventure easier, and thus, should result in slower advancement?
Speed of advancement and difficulty of adventure are more or less independent in my game. But generally speaking, if I thought the party wasn't being challenged enough, I would add more challenges rather than slowing down advancement.
|
|
Some interesting opinions and ideas so far.
XP is not an issue, we usually have a smaller group, and having a sidekick help out is really what we need for most games. The rules for XP seems fair enough, even if it does lighten our combat load a tad by having a cohort there.
We are going through the Skinsaw murders, and just reached Magnimar and having some extra firepower for a battle I know just a hint about coming up should be needed. Other players at the table got distracted by the extra hand in the pot come loot time, and want an OOC house rule added to prevent something that seemed odd to me, which was the limiting of what a cohort can take as a reward.
I think so far what I like most is having the DM choose for the cohort when it comes to loot time.
Another thing is that gets weird with cohorts is encounter design. For example, my AoW/PFRPG group has four PCs, two of whom each have a cohort. They are all level 13, and the cohorts are level 11. So how do I calculate the APL?
If I figure in the cohorts I get (4*13+2*11) / 6 = 12,33 which gets rounded down to 12. Then 1 is added because they are 6, so the APL is 13, exactly the same as without the cohorts. That doesn't seem right. I could leave out the cohorts, then I get APL 14, but leaving them out of the equation doesn't really seem right either...
|
|
Another thing is that gets weird with cohorts is encounter design. For example, my AoW/PFRPG group has four PCs, two of whom each have a cohort. They are all level 13, and the cohorts are level 11. So how do I calculate the APL?
If I figure in the cohorts I get (4*13+2*11) / 6 = 12,33 which gets rounded down to 12. Then 1 is added because they are 6, so the APL is 13, exactly the same as without the cohorts. That doesn't seem right. I could leave out the cohorts, then I get APL 14, but leaving them out of the equation doesn't really seem right either...
Do you leave out animal companions, familiars and paladins special mounts when you calculate the APL? If so then leaving out the cohorts seems to be consistent to me.
I think so far what I like most is having the DM choose for the cohort when it comes to loot time.
Likewise, where does the loot come from when equipping animal companions, familiars and paladins special mounts (assuming that this is allowed in your campaigns)? If it comes from the PC who 'controls' the animal companion etc. then the PC that attracted the cohort is the one who equips the cohort. If animal companions etc. gain a share of the loot in your campaign then the same should be true for a cohort.
That is my 2 cp, oh, and even though I have quoted two posters, I am not just replying to them I am speaking to everyone to gain their opinions.
EDIT: Sorry, I ought to have said, I treat cohorts exactly like animal companions etc. in that they are equipped by their 'masters' (for want of a better word) and do not count when calculating APL.
XP is regulated neatly, so no question there. For loot, I can see several options.
Note that the cohort isn't a full and equal party member, and I mean that not only from a game mechanics standpoint, but also IC: He's a character's sidekick, cohort, follower, servant. While there's no question that he is contributing, he doesn't have as big an impact as the others, and probably not a "full vote", either. It's like a party consisting of Superman, the Flash, Daredevil, Batman and Robin. Robin's not a big player there.
These considerations can translate into the following options:
Personally, I'd probably go with something between 1 and 2: They won't get a full share, and maybe they don't get a share at all, his employer being responsible for his payment.
One important note on cohorts and the party's power level:
Cohorts are two (or more!) levels behind the party (or, at least, behind the character that has the feat), which means that they don't pack quite the punch the "real" party members do. The gap can be even bigger depending on whether they get the same character generation options as the characters (I can totally see them getting less points to purchase their ability scores - I usually use epic 25 for characters, and I'd say a cohort would only get 20, or even 15, points - and of course they don't get extra perks like Traits), and of course, on how much coin they are getting.
Add to that the fact that you have to spend a feat on the cohort, and his impact on party power isn't nearly as great as having another full-fledged character around.
Maybe it's my 1st-Edition experiences showing through, but it was common to see parties of mixed levels.
Back then, the same amount of XP meant different character levels, though. And I guess it was a balancing factor: The level 10 thief was supposed to be on part with the level 8 fighter, and so on.
I avoid the mixed-level issue by granting equal XP all around, even for absent party members.
I don't think the game need to regulate how loot is allocated, PCs or cohorts alike. This should always be part of a social contract, implicit or explicitly declared, between the players or party members. I see no need to have anything about this in the rules.
Whether the PCs want to award their cohorts equal shares or have the "owning" player responsible for equipping the cohort, that should be entirely up to the players.
Regarding the power level, Kae'Yoss's post certainly has its points. Still I find it weird that an party of four characters should have the same APL as the same party minus two feats plus 2 additional, slightly lower-level, characters.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
XP is regulated neatly, so no question there. For loot, I can see several options.
Note that the cohort isn't a full and equal party member, and I mean that not only from a game mechanics standpoint, but also IC: He's a character's sidekick, cohort, follower, servant. While there's no question that he is contributing, he doesn't have as big an impact as the others, and probably not a "full vote", either. It's like a party consisting of Superman, the Flash, Daredevil, Batman and Robin. Robin's not a big player there.
Is that why Robin gets his own book? So he can get more XP? :-)
I always ran it that the cohort got XP on this formula: Full share for PC of that level (Cohort level/PC level) so, for example (using the beta RPG table) Character is 8th level, Cohort is 6th. party is 4 characters plus cohort. They defeat a CR 8 encounter. 8th level PC gets the full (800/4)200 XP. Cohort gets (800(6/8))/4 150 XP.
12th level party defeats CR 12 encounter, 10th level cohort, 4 party members. PCs get 800 XP, Cohort gets (3200(10/12))/4 667 XP.
Yes this does generate some 'phantom XP' OTOH, the cohort is a character trait. The Thrallherd is similar, a full fledged NPC or two, who comes with the character class.
As to gear, since the cohort is 'part' of the character, any equiping him comes out of the character's share of the treasure. Does the Wizard's familiar, or the Paladin's mount, or the druid's animal companion get a seperate share of the gold? This also can affect the leadership score. If the PC is spending less than a quarter of his gold on his cohort's gear, then he's likely going to take the penalty for 'aloofnes' If he spends 1/3-1/2 of his share on the cohort's gear, I'll give him the bonus for 'Fairness and generosity'
Followers I don't worry as much about, since they're not going to be in the line of fire. Now if Paul Paladin travels with his entire happy leadership band (which at 7th level could easily be 5th level cohort, +5 first level followers) he'd better equip them all, or he's going to be losing followers left and right.
I would agree that when it comes to creation, the cohort is decidedly less powerful by means of stat points and such. I also agree that since you are probably having to slightly boost the encounters to compensate for the extra manpower of the party that the boost in treasure ought to already be accounting for the cohort's share.
I'd like to say though that given youll probably say the cohort levels at the same time his leader does, his wealth/character level gain should be lower than his leaders as shown by the table alone.
So my decision would be to say that his wealth should be pretty well represented by the slight increase in the CR. The Cohort's wealth be 100% strictly seperate from the leader's (No item sharing beyond what might be typical, no lending) If it's still a problem I'd say to not include treasure for the cohort and instead award him gold based on the wealth/lvl chart and just let the cohort shop for his equipment. Would easily be represented as a salary. As you said, if he is fulfilling a needed role in the party and your player is running the cohort in an agreeable way, then he does deserve some reward. If he's not running the cohort in an agreeable way or the cohort isnt particularly useful to the group then dont allow cohorts.
Everything about a cohort is under the control of the DM, even the idea of allowing Leadership to be taken. Rules can't solve the treasure-division issue, because the rules aren't meant to, the DM is.
Thus, there's no reason to mess with the text of the Leadership feat.
Players are not entitled to take Leadership. That's why Leadership was in the Dungeon Master's Guide and not the Player's Handbook.
-Matt
|
|
As a DM, I'd take control of the cohort. The PC can give his orders and try to exert his leadership, but, ultimately, the DM should decide how the NPC reacts. Since the NPC is now independent from the player's control, the question of earning a full share and "loaning" to the boss PC can be handled.
I don't think the game need to regulate how loot is allocated, PCs or cohorts alike. This should always be part of a social contract, implicit or explicitly declared, between the players or party members. I see no need to have anything about this in the rules.
Maybe not in the rules part, but the books always had advise on building worlds and solving conflicts both in the game and out of the game. This information is never a hard and fast rule (well, actually, nothing is in RPGs) but rather guidelines to help you. Useful tools. Possible ways to treat loot and cohorts belongs into the book as much as general information about how loot can be shared, or even stuff like how common racism is and all that.
Ultimately, it's of course something the players have to work out for themselves, just like they have to work out for themselves how they split the loot, how they handle found items several people want, what they do if someone's not there for a session (though the GM has some say here, too: Is it assumed that the absent player's character tags along or does he do something else? Does he get XP? Does he get his own loot?)
But it certainly won't hurt to state a couple of possibilities as well as their pros and cons.
Regarding the power level, Kae'Yoss's post certainly has its points. Still I find it weird that an party of four characters should have the same APL as the same party minus two feats plus 2 additional, slightly lower-level, characters.
Sure, the cohort is probably more powerful/useful than any other feat, but he's certainly not equal to a full party member, and it's not unlikely that he's not equal to what a party member two levels lower would be. With possible lower ability scores, lack of character bonuses (like the Traits we find in Companions and the stuff from the Players Guides), and maybe lower wealth, we're talking about a character that's effectively 3, 4 or maybe even more levels behind a character in power.
And such a character's impact on the party's effectiveness can be quite low. He'll have fewer attacks, the attacks will deal less damage, his AC will be worse, his HP lower, and he'll lag a whole spell level behind the full-fledged spellcasters.
The best solution to XP would probably be a middle way between full share and no XP deduction for player characters at all, but I think that unless you want to go the extra mile and fool around with factions and all that, keeping him out of XP considerations is probably the better way.
As a DM, I'd take control of the cohort. The PC can give his orders and try to exert his leadership, but, ultimately, the DM should decide how the NPC reacts. Since the NPC is now independent from the player's control, the question of earning a full share and "loaning" to the boss PC can be handled.
That's just one more thing the GM has on his hands. I'd let the players play their cohorts.
Of course, I won't switch off like a Television and let the players use and abuse their cohorts any way they want. When they go too far, they'll get a warning, or I'll step in.
On the other hand, so far I've only seen one cohort, and that was from my own character, and since that were clerics of Bane, a bit of mistreatment was part of the deal...
I guess that ultimately, something would have to be done with Leadership. Maybe do away with the feat completely, and put the whole cohorts and followers question into the hands of the GM.
|
|
This can be a thorny issue, especially with the more materialistically inclined party members. The most common solution I've seen is to give the cohort a half share of the treasure, since they do contribute in a meaningful way to the party, but at a few levels lower.
If the party still objects to this, you can always give the cohort a share of your own treasure or choose a cohort that doesn't care about wealth (like a magical beast or construct).
|
As a side note, I wouldn't mind seeing something like this added to the Leadership feat:"Adding a cohort to a game complicates things by effectively giving the character who takes the Leadership feat a second turn to act every combat round. Since the time spent in a session doesn't increase once a cohort is added, this essentially means that characters without cohorts have less time per session to play. In larger parties, the gap between turns in combat can be strained beyond the breaking point by adding a cohort. As a result, you should know your comfort level with the number of players you want at your table; 4 or 5 is about right, in my opinion. If adding a cohort brings the total number of CHARACTERS above this limit, you should not allow the cohort to accompany the PCs on adventures."
Please, please add this to the book!
*edit*
* Galnörag looks up, waves, and then whistles innocently. *
It seems my group is not of like mind when one of us fielded a cohort in our most recent game, and said they should get a fair share of treasure earned.
I'll try to present the argument in a neutral manner as I'm involved in the debate, but I'd like to hear your side of this issue, and perhaps how your group deals with this issue.
The IC debate:
It was argued that someone joining the party, regardless if they are not "the PC", should indeed get a share of loot as they are at risk just like the PCs and are working to help. The argument offered was: she is participating in combat, faces all the same challenges a PC does and should get a reward cut as well.The OOC debate:
One player has his cohort, so the party(some of) feel he is getting extra loot, due to the one player effectively fielding 2 characters. One of the other players had issue with another player getting effectively 1.5 shares or possibly 2 shares due to this.I find it hard to argue the IC vrs OOC as it's two different beasts, so I'm looking for the best solution to quell both sides and keep it fair.
How should the players handle this? Both in game and out of game. Is there even a compromise that works for both scenarios?
Give them dull knives, and Jell-O Brand Pudding...
Let the games begin!!!!! <que Kirk Fight Music HERE>
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Everything about a cohort is under the control of the DM, even the idea of allowing Leadership to be taken. Rules can't solve the treasure-division issue, because the rules aren't meant to, the DM is.
Thus, there's no reason to mess with the text of the Leadership feat.
Players are not entitled to take Leadership. That's why Leadership was in the Dungeon Master's Guide and not the Player's Handbook.
-Matt
So your answer on how his group should handle this (assuming the DM is already involved) is...
Ask the DM.
Brilliant!
Ask the DM.
There are several "balance issues" in the game which go away if the DM does what he's supposed to:
-Prestige classes
-Leadership
-Item crafting
-The Wizard's spellbook
These and more are in the domain of the DM. Thus, if a DM exercises no control over these elements, then DM has chosen to forego those responsibilities.
Or... don't mess with Leadership because some DMs aren't exercising the control they're supposed to.
-Matt
I have player who plans on taking the Leadership feat and this is what we have planned: XP--Not an issue, the cohort will remain 2 levels behind, when he levels, so will his cohort. Treasure--1/2 share of all monetary treasure. Magic--The cohort will benefit from trickle down, so instead of selling a item the party can't use, that item will instead be offered to the cohort. Any "choice" item will not go to the cohort unless the player uses his "pick" to equip his cohort. The rest of the group is on board with this, and it appears that all seems fair. We have yet to test this though, so we'll see.
Jeff
I think you should also look at this from a roleplaying standpoint. How is the NPC going to feel about the rest of the party if they are all making such a fuss about whether he deserves a cut of treasure? Ultimately, I agree that the party as a whole needs to at least come to a majority decision on how this is going to work out, but it may affect not only how the npc sees the other members of the party, but whether he even decides to stay on for that kind of treatment. I'm also of the school of thought that the GM should at least roleplay the npc, if not actually take full control of npcs.
On a more "personal experience" note, I have been in groups that had this kind of problem, and it can get ugly. If you're having this much problem with the issue now, it could escalate to the point that you start losing players. You may end up having to go so far as to pull the npc all together and let the player choose a different feat. Be careful with this one.
Ask the DM.There are several "balance issues" in the game which go away if the DM does what he's supposed to:
-Prestige classes
-Leadership
-Item crafting
-The Wizard's spellbookThese and more are in the domain of the DM. Thus, if a DM exercises no control over these elements, then DM has chosen to forego those responsibilities.
PrCs, sure, but not any more than any other non-core rules in my opinion. Either the GM goes the easy way and let players play what they want, period, or they do the work and regulate access to pretty much everything.
Leadership can be a balance problem, but right now we're talking more about things the players need to decide for themselves, i.e. how cohorts get paid.
Item Crafting: Do you mean what sorts of items players can buy or what they can create themselves? About the latter I say that IMO, if the character fulfills the prerequisites (i.e. has the proper feat, has the spells ready, and so on), he can build it. Of course, time's always an issue, and the GM can control crafting by how much time players have between adventures - but if he does, he should tell the players beforehand. Letting someone take several craft feats only to hurry them through the campaign from 1 to 20 without more than one day downtime, he's just being a jerk.
All three are things that are in the GM's purview, more or less.
But not wizards' spellbooks. Not really! Starting spells and the spells they get for free on each level-up are for the players to choos, just like sorcerers can decide what spells they learn, and clerics what spells they prepare from their deities. You can control what sort of spell scrolls (or looted spellbooks) they receive via availability, of course, but unless the GM is anal about every classe's spell selection (which in my opinion makes him a micromanaging tyrant), the wizards' player gets to decide which spells to pick up for level-up.
If the GM has problems with some spells, he should just ban them from the game and say so.
|
|
But not wizards' spellbooks. Not really! Starting spells and the spells they get for free on each level-up are for the players to choos, just like sorcerers can decide what spells they learn, and clerics what spells they prepare from their deities. You can control what sort of spell scrolls (or looted spellbooks) they receive via availability, of course, but unless the GM is anal about every classe's spell selection (which in my opinion makes him a micromanaging tyrant), the wizards' player gets to decide which spells to pick up for level-up.If the GM has problems with some spells, he should...
From the core rule book I would agree, but I think spells from secondary sources are at the GM's discretion. I would go so far as to say entirely what books from secondary sources are permitted, but I think it is reasonable for the GM to rule on individual spells from secondary sources.
From the core rule book I would agree, but I think spells from secondary sources are at the GM's discretion. I would go so far as to say entirely what books from secondary sources are permitted, but I think it is reasonable for the GM to rule on individual spells from secondary sources.
Of course, but that's not a spellbook issue. It's a non-core sources issue. Just like the GM can ban feats or magic items from other sources - or say that other sources are permittable by a case-by-case basis, and always require permission first - they can ban spells from other sources.
In fact, they can ban feats, magic items, and whatever from the core rules, too. GM envisions a world without dwarves? Core race dwarves is not an option. GM doesn't want teleport magic? All teleport core spells are out of the question. And so on.
But in this case, the GM would probably ban the spell wholesale, and not just say "you can't put it in the spellbook". On the other hand, if the GM did say "you cannot learn orb of force" and then sic an enemy war mage with orb of force on me, I'd pack my things and go....