|
So a PC's cohort died in our last game session. How is the cohort replaced?
If the PC wants, they can opt to raise the cohort and then pay for the negative level to be removed.
What if they choose not to raise the cohort? When they attract another one there will be a -2 penalty to the Leadership score for having a dead cohort, but is anything else different? For example, the chart in the feat says the -2 applies when the PC tries to attract a cohort -- does it also apply to followers the PC has or could have?
Once the penalty comes into existence, it effects the current "troupe" of NPCs. If the penalty is enough to cause the loss of some of them, they leave. The new cohort is limited in maximum level by the same score as well, if the new level is higher that the -2 allows (dying loses one level, the maximum level could be two lower because of the penalty), that raised npc is no longer "valid" as a cohort.
As for how the cohort is replaced, it's as simple as the NPC introducing themselves to the PC and saying "here I am." Once it is created just bring it into the game, with as little or as much fanfare as you want.
|
Once the penalty comes into existence, it effects the current "troupe" of NPCs. If the penalty is enough to cause the loss of some of them, they leave. The new cohort is limited in maximum level by the same score as well, if the new level is higher that the -2 allows (dying loses one level, the maximum level could be two lower because of the penalty), that raised npc is no longer "valid" as a cohort.
It seems a bit hard to continue to apply the penalty to a character after he paid for a raise dead for the guy. He should at least get the modifier for a reputation for generosity, which would prevent his minimum cohort level going down by 2 and ensure that he wouldn't lose the raised cohort.
edit: The modifiers for followers are different than for a cohort. I'd say that a cohort counts as a follower for the purpose of the "caused the death of other followers" penalty. The PC would therefore take a -1 to his Leadership score with respect to followers, which might cause some of his followers to leave, as Skylancer mentioned (if he hadn't incurred this penalty before).
|
|
It seems a bit hard to continue to apply the penalty to a character after he paid for a raise dead for the guy.
I agree. On the other hand, it’s in TV shows all the time (usually at the end of a season, when an actor leaves the show), where someone goes through something harsh, it turns out okay, but is then all, “Hey guys, this has caused me to take a long hard look at my life. No bad on you, I love you all, but I have to go home to my family.”
However it’s ruled, there seems to be good story opportunities either way.
|
|
Okay, thanks.
I was planning to apply the -2 for a new cohort, then add back in +1 (not +2 for generous) as the cohort is the party's only cleric so it's not entirely just the PC being generous. ;)
And at 13th level it's not like the price of raise dead and restoration (for the negative level) is a huge amount of cash. In fact, the local temple is having the party work it off instead which just means a little extra XP on the side. Win-win-win for everyone. :)
I was thinking more about the followers, since the -2 is supposed to apply to a new cohort, not followers. But I can see applying perhaps a -1 at least. Followers of someone who lets their "right-hand man" die in their service are going to feel a little apprehensive about their illustrious leader...
If the Leader has good CHA and other factors, then the minus is something that could possibly be offset, its easy to get a pretty high score that ensures you get several chances before falling down past L-2.
I'm not entirely convinced that the penalties and benefits are being applied correctly either.
You don't get penalised by the NPC dying, it says caused the death of.., so there has to be something the player did, either put the cohort in harms way neglectfully, made a bad call resulting in a fatality etc. The word 'caused' implies the PC is to blame for it.
Similarly, rezzing a dead cohort after causing their death is hardly great generosity - "Hey now I know I threw you under the Orcish bang-bus to stall them while we ran off, and you suffered a horrible slow killing that will scar you emotionally into your next life, but hey I rezzed you, you should THANK ME".
Frankly in a lot of cases a Rez is the least you could do.
Thats my take on it anyway.
|
|
Hm, lots of good stuff here.
The PC with Leadership has Cha 14 so he has his level + 2 as a Leadership score. I.e. the cohort was at the highest level it could be at because of the upper limit of PC_Level - 2.
The cohort is the only full-class cleric in the group.
The party was going up against a pretty big contingent of bad guys. Did they know how big? Yes, I think they should have expected a pretty stiff fight. They'd already assaulted this fortified building twice and been driven away both times after causing significant casualties on the defender's side. The party is two 12th level PCs and three 13th level PCs; the PC with Leadership is one of the 13th level characters.
(The funny part of it is that they stealthed into the area and were spotted, so the defenders turned and ran away to raise the alarm. The party followed after them and caught up, but not before two other guards were notified so then the party figures they need to silence those two as well! Long story short they ended up running into an area two floors down where the remaining defenders had gathered after the party's previous two raids and hit the PCs hard when they came running down the stairwell.)
I would say that the PC with Leadership became desperate and called in the cohort cleric. Then an assassin stepped out of the shadows after waiting for another opponent to flank the cleric -- and a full attack later (hasted) and the cleric down. Way down.
(We play that because combat is simultaneous, when a creature goes down -- even if it's below negative Con -- there is still one loop through the initiative remaining in which that creature can be brought up at least as high as negative Con, plus 1, so that the creature isn't dead; other party members get a single turn to help and avoid the need for a raise dead.)
So I would say he knowingly risked the cohort's life in a desperate move to save his own butt.
I'm sorry that got so long winded. I'm done now. :)
I dunno, I think that may be a *little* hard on the guy, they were in a hard tactical situation and called in reinforcements to help save the day, and at the Cleric heeded the call. A hidden assassin in the mix wasn't something the player knew about, and couldn't really have known about - and it went south. He didn't actively do anything stupid, careless, or heartless - so I reckon I'd give the benefot of the doubt - once.
Adventuring is a dangerous profession after all, and Cohorts aren't clueless to the risks. They are going in with theor eyes open, its only when the players recklessly endanger them there should be (an almighty) kick in the rear.
I'm not comfortable with a feat that gives you a cohort that you can't have accompany you for rear that ninjas might show up and slaughter him. If the PC pays to have the cohort raised as soon as reasonably possible (and if that's reasonably soon), I wouldn't apply a penalty.
There's "being responsible" for the cohort's death in the sense that you were negligent or chose your own survival over the cohort's. Then there's "being responsible" in the sense that in the course of a normal day's adventuring someone falls down and goes boom.
|
|
I can see both sides. On the one hand the assassin was an unknown quantity that they had the bad luck finding. On the other discretion is the better part of valor and I doubt you would have penalized them if they had retreated and come up with a more tactical plan.
Yep, exactly!
The PC sometimes takes the cohort for granted, making jokes about "send in the cohort first" and that kind of thing. Those are OOC jokes, but still...
They knew the place was infested with assassins (it's a veritable "nest" of them) and they were tasked with retrieving proof of such a "nest". However, they didn't know that there would be assassins necessarily waiting for them as they ran down the stairs.
Retreating and regrouping would actually have been a very good idea! This group tends to consider themselves a little more powerful than they really are. I.e. they're playing maybe one or two levels above themselves. Usually this doesn't hurt them too bad, but every once in awhile -- like this encounter -- it comes back to bite'em in the butt.
I'm going to go with the -1 penalty on the Leadership score then. It's normally -2 for a cohort, but the PC paid for the raise dead out of his own cash-on-hand and not out of the party loot. (Hm, I need to check that now and make sure. That would play back to his "commitment" for the cohort.)
So his Leadership score would be 14 (13th level + 2 Cha Bonus - 1 penalty). But the maximum level of the cohort is 10th anyway since there's no difference between LS 14 and LS 15 in the level of the cohort. There will be a difference if the PC survives to next level though. >D
I'm not comfortable with a feat that gives you a cohort that you can't have accompany you for rear that ninjas might show up and slaughter him. If the PC pays to have the cohort raised as soon as reasonably possible (and if that's reasonably soon), I wouldn't apply a penalty.
There's "being responsible" for the cohort's death in the sense that you were negligent or chose your own survival over the cohort's. Then there's "being responsible" in the sense that in the course of a normal day's adventuring someone falls down and goes boom.
This has always been a sticking point for me as well every time I've read that feat. If you pick a cohort that you know is going to be following you around and not just sitting at home tending the home base, that cohort has to understand that he will be walking into potentially deadly situations. Unless the PC does something that the cohort knows is blatantly and obviously stupid, there should be no reason why the cohort would feel any more distant toward that PC if he dies and the PC is prompt in restoring him to life; this is adventuring and sometimes things just don't work out the way the party expected. Same goes for followers, if they follow the PC onto a battlefield to oppose another army, they have to realize that some of them will probably die, irregardless of how the battle turns out.