This has come up in several of the games I play in where people have started to take Leadership. Note: I’m not interested in how your group bans Leadership or how you, personally, don’t like it.
In each case there is a disagreement about whether the cohort should get an equal share of the treasure, or only get a cut from his Leader.
I understand the out of game reasons why wealth wouldn't be split evenly, one player getting two shares, etc. I can see that point of view. In game though, the cohort is his own person. He risks his life the same as the rest of the party. He may contribute as much to combat as, if not more than, other party members.
The fact that he’s the “secondary” is purely out of game mechanics. You hire the Bashem Brothers, who’s the Leader and who’s the “Cohort”.
I could see not paying the cohort if he only ever helps his Leader, but if he helps everyone, takes the same risks as everyone, takes a share of the watch like everyone, then why shouldn’t he be paid like everyone?
Design Manager
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's currently employed as an "intern" adventurer, and his "payment" is the experience he's getting by traveling with such experienced and amazing people as the adventurers happen to be.
Alternatively, depending on the alignment and location of your party, he could be a slave owned by the character (this should probably be setting specific and used by evil characters).
He's a third cousin who couldn't find a job and you're currently feeding, clothing and teaching him a trade, which is payment enough.
The party-member rescued him from a terrible fate and now he's paying back a life-debt.
The party member won his services when they were playing cards and the guy ran out of money but felt like his last hand was "a sure thing".
The cohort has taken a vow of poverty.
The cohort committed a terrible act and is trying to balance his karma by assisting the adventurers and refuses to accept payment.
He's currently employed as an "intern" adventurer, and his "payment" is the experience he's getting by traveling with such experienced and amazing people as the adventurers happen to be.
Why is he an "intern"? Does he only face "intern" levels of danger or does he face the exact same challenges with less starting gold?
Alternatively, depending on the alignment and location of your party, he could be a slave owned by the character (this should probably be setting specific and used by evil characters).
I could argue this, but sure.
He's a third cousin who couldn't find a job and you're currently feeding, clothing and teaching him a trade, which is payment enough.
"I bought you those shoes." doesn't quite cover "I saved your life twice yesterday."
The party-member rescued him from a terrible fate and now he's paying back a life-debt.
The party member won his services when they were playing cards and the guy ran out of money but felt like his last hand was "a sure thing".
The cohort has taken a vow of poverty.
The cohort committed a terrible act and is trying to balance his karma by assisting the adventurers and refuses to accept payment.
These are all essentially "the cohort agrees to no money", which is of course no problem.
I tend to play with big enough groups that cohorts are generally impractical, but when one does make their way in for whatever reason, we totally give them a fair share of any loot we come across. In-character wise, there's really no reason not to, and mechanics wise, it's the most practical thing to do. You've already got this one character who's consistently a level or two down. If you don't give them any magic items, they're just going to be dead weight dragging you down. If anything, you should give them preferential treatment to bring them totally up to par.
|
Design Manager
|
He's currently employed as an "intern" adventurer, and his "payment" is the experience he's getting by traveling with such experienced and amazing people as the adventurers happen to be.Why is he an "intern"? Does he only face "intern" levels of danger or does he face the exact same challenges with less starting gold?
He's a lower level i.e. less experienced, less talented, less well known. See "intern".
You're going to have to come up with something that the cohort not getting a cut of the loot, because at the end of the day, he's not a party character. You don't pay him any more than the druid's bear gets a cut of the loot. Unfortunately that occasionally means from a role-playing perspective that you're going to have to shoe-horn a hook into the story to explain it if someone feels like bringing it up.
He works for a specific member of the party. That party member has a separate agreement with him (whatever that may be) regarding how he's compensated. He's not part of the main group. You'll have to flavor that someway, but that's the reality at the end of the day. Guy the Paladin, Ricardo the Ranger, and Erabeth the Sorceress are all party members. Guy's squire Joseph isn't.
This is an excellent opportunity to introduce the concept of a "party contract" wherein the divvying of loot is laid out. Our groups typically have an agreement where-by the loot is divided up into a number of equal shares per party member and an extra share to cover party necessities and resurrections.
The key is to make it clear that the cohort works for the party member who hired/captured/attracted/employed him, and that person is responsible for making their cohort happy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue here is that each PC will receive a smaller share. Thats the real problem when you boil it down, right? How do the players at your table feel about this? I know this doesn't directly address your question, but it is a more important consideration that role-playing.
Each party is a "company" with share holders. Each share holder gets one shares woth of the treasure. So regardless of how many people they hire or bring, each share holder still only get's their one share.
Now having said this, I will tell you that is anopther player's cohort was really helping the whole party, I would have no issue with giving that cohort a part of the treasure from my share. (Think of it as a tip for their hard work).
Keep in mind a real world example is how pirates often devided up treasure. Each crew member risked the same hanging or drownding etc but they diod not get an eaven share. The first mate got more then the lowly gunner.
Another real world example is modern military. The private and the Sergent both risk their lives on the front but are not paid the same.
Risk does not always mean your "cut" is the same.
At least that is how I see it from an "in game" point of view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've always given cohorts half a share. That is, when dividing treasure, we add an additional half share for the cohort.
He's currently employed as an "intern" adventurer, and his "payment" is the experience he's getting by traveling with such experienced and amazing people as the adventurers happen to be.
Except an intern eventually is hired by the company, or leaves to seek employment elsewhere. If the party doesn't start paying their "intern" after a couple levels, they're gonna leave.
If you use the Law firm methodology, the cohort isn't one of the partners, so he'snot paid a partner's share any more than the secretary who's hired by and for a specific partner would be paid such.
The firm still pays the secretary.
The key is to make it clear that the cohort works for the party member who hired/captured/attracted/employed him, and that person is responsible for making their cohort happy.
Honestly, if I played with such a group, my cohort would make a point of reminding the party the he doesn't work for them, he "works for the party member who hired/captured/attracted/employed him"
My character would just shrug and apologize every time his Bard cohort Inspired Courage only for him.|
Design Manager
|
Honestly, if I played with such a group, my cohort would make a point of reminding the party the he doesn't work for them, he "works for the party member who hired/captured/attracted/employed him"
My character would just shrug and apologize every time his Bard cohort Inspired Courage only for him.
He's a class feature, essentially. Do you also give the druid's animal companion a cut? How about the Cavalier's Horse? He's killing critters and providing much of his masters damage, right?
The party members who are getting their wealth cut down to share with your feat have just as much reason to be upset (more really) as your characters feat does to get upset about not getting an equal share. Fighter's don't get an extra party share for taking Whirlwind Attack. Summoners don't get extra loot for their Eidolon, Druids and Rangers don't get extra loot for their pet, cavaliers don't get extra loot for their mount (although maybe they all should).
Yes, the loot is probably going to equip the guy and make him better at what he does. But are the cavalier and druid paying for barding and items out of pocket? If so, than the guy who took Leadership should be taking care of his "pet" the same way, and the GM and the player who took Leadership should work together to come up with a reasonable explanation for why this guy isn't a full-fledged member of the party and isn't getting paid as such. Anything else means a larger share of the loot and reward is going unfairly to one member of the party.
All of that being said, our group actually does use the party portion of our wealth for equipping pets and mounts (other than Eidolons since they share slots with the Summoner) in addition to general expenses and raise deads, but that doesn't really address the issue here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why make it complicated? A party with five members splits the loot five ways. If one of those adventurers has hirelings, they pay said hirelings out of their own share. Boom, done.
What is the difference between a "hireling" who buffs the entire party and a "member" who only buffs himself? What is the difference between a level 5 party member and a level 5 cohort?
|
Design Manager
|
What is the difference between a "hireling" who buffs the entire party and a "member" who only buffs himself? What is the difference between a level 5 party member and a level 5 cohort?
The level 5 cohort is running with a level 7+ party. So they're presumably better than him, more experienced, etc.
The party member entered into some kind of mutually beneficial agreement with the rest of the party. The cohort has an agreement with a specific party member.
The level 5 cohort is running with a level 7+ party. So they're presumably better than him, more experienced, etc.
And if a party member is level 5 along with the cohort, does he get a lesser cut?
The party member entered into some kind of mutually beneficial agreement with the rest of the party. The cohort has an agreement with a specific party member.
If a cohort is buffing the party, how is that not mutually beneficial? Is everyone who is not the leader waving away the healing spells and making Will Saves to resist the buff spells? Because if they are benefitting the same as the Leader, but refusing to pay the same as the Leader, aren't they having their cake and eating it too?
Cohort Level: You can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than yourself.
Also, why would a party member (aka PC) be a lower level than the rest of the party? All the classes run on the same XP track. This isn't 1st or 2nd edition, where each class had a different XP chart.
The level 5 cohort is running with a level 7+ party. So they're presumably better than him, more experienced, etc.And if a party member is level 5 along with the cohort, does he get a lesser cut?
The party member entered into some kind of mutually beneficial agreement with the rest of the party. The cohort has an agreement with a specific party member.If a cohort is buffing the party, how is that not mutually beneficial? Is everyone who is not the leader waving away the healing spells and making Will Saves to resist the buff spells? Because if they are benefitting the same as the Leader, but refusing to pay the same as the Leader, aren't they having their cake and eating it too?
it seems like what you want is a second PC, and using the leadership feat to try to achieve that goal. the pc taking leadership should of talked this out between his fellow pcs to decide if they want to give up part of there loot.
the cohort is there to support his patron and that means helping the party. that is why he is there just like the bonded mount, familiar, or eidolons. if the group decides they want to outfit these "extras" with party funds then thats there call.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cohort gets nothing save what his leader provides for him. If the leader puts him in harm's way without adequate gear, time to find a new leader.
A cohort is not the same as a PC. He has a strong loyalty and subordination tied to his leader that the other PCs don't have towards each other.
No further reason in-character is needed. If a player wants to take the best feat in the game AND get extra treasure for it, I'm going to make sure I take leadership as well just to balance it out.
Geeze, this is like the softer gentler version of, "If my PC is a klepto by nature and is able to hide some found loot for himself w/o the party having any way IC to know it's going on, what IC reason is there for him to not rip them off?" The reason is it's a game and you shouldn't be a cheesy jerk to your friends!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a cohort is buffing the party, how is that not mutually beneficial? Is everyone who is not the leader waving away the healing spells and making Will Saves to resist the buff spells? Because if they are benefitting the same as the Leader, but refusing to pay the same as the Leader, aren't they having their cake and eating it too?
Yes they are. When I hired folks to keep my lawn nice and paint my house I helped elevate the values of the other houses on my street. That does not mean I should get to ask there owners for money to help pay for my painter or my gardener etc. The unintended benifit to them has no bearing on my agreement with the painter or gardener. I have to pay them.
Same for a cohort. The one character gathered a cohort. That cohort may or may not bring benifit to the other party members. But the deal is between the one character and his/her cohort. Not the party, the single "leader".
To be honest, it seems like you are unhappy with some great answers here that have addressed your original question. You seem to spend most of your posts trying to prove the cohort should get a full share. Makes me curious, was it you that had the cohort and wanted another share? If so, no big deal, but if not, then I think you have received several good answers for your question.
In any case, good luck with your game.
If a cohort is buffing the party, how is that not mutually beneficial? Is everyone who is not the leader waving away the healing spells and making Will Saves to resist the buff spells? Because if they are benefitting the same as the Leader, but refusing to pay the same as the Leader, aren't they having their cake and eating it too?Yes they are. When I hired folks to keep my lawn nice and paint my house I helped elevate the values of the other houses on my street. That does not mean I should get to ask there owners for money to help pay for my painter or my gardener etc. The unintended benifit to them has no bearing on my agreement with the painter or gardener. I have to pay them.
Same for a cohort. The one character gathered a cohort. That cohort may or may not bring benifit to the other party members. But the deal is between the one character and his/her cohort. Not the party, the single "leader".
To be honest, it seems like you are unhappy with some great answers here that have addressed your original question. You seem to spend most of your posts trying to prove the cohort should get a full share. Makes me curious, was it you that had the cohort and wanted another share? If so, no big deal, but if not, then I think you have received several good answers for your question.
In any case, good luck with your game.
I was not the one who built the cohort, but the more I think about it, the more unfair that kind of answer sounds.
To use your analogy, only you recieved a direct benefit (the mowed lawn). The indirect benefit (increased property values) everyone recieved, but I wouldn't expect them to pay for it. This is like when a cohort only helps his Leader. It still makes the party as a whole stronger, which helps everyone else indirectly. Fine.
However, if you hired a mower, then you noticed all your neighbors getting their lawns mowed too (a direct benefit akin to healing spells, buffing spells etc.) you would also expect them to pay, wouldn’t you? You pay for those direct services, why don’t they?
If you were the mower, and you mowed 4 lawns but 3 of the owners claimed that only one of them hired you, would that seem fair to you?
Dropping analogies to speak plainly, if I brought in a cohort that all the players used to craft items at half cost, took healing spells from, took buff spells from, all the same as me, but when I asked them to help equip my cohort they said “Whoa, he works for you not us” I would damn sure get pissed that everyone gets a benefit, but only I pay a price.
As with all loot distribution, the party divvies it up as desired.
If there is a cohort who is getting screwed, as the GM I will play the cohort as an NPC that is getting screwed.
Most of the time my players have a suitable in-game reason for the cohort to get a lesser share of loot.
And most of the time the cohorts do not take the same risk. By far the most common use of a cohort in our games is to do healing between encounters. Usually during the encounter the cohort is in the rear, frequently with spells like "sanctuary" cast on them, or "invisibility".
In the rare cases that a cohort becomes a combatant, the party usually rewards them.
well, the druid's pet animal or the cavalier's mount aren't sentient beings who could abandon you for lack of compensation.
even if you don't give the cohort an equal share of the loot. at least equip the cohort in hand me downs from more experienced party members. or else you will run through cohorts left and right.
the cohort isn't running the same level of risk, they are running a bigger level of risk. due to both being 2 levels lower, and depending on gear that a normal pet wouldn't.
a cohort is no stronger a combatant than an animal companion or eidolon. even with PC wealth, PC trait allowances and PC level attributes and perfect tailored gear.
|
The issue here is that each PC will receive a smaller share. Thats the real problem when you boil it down, right? How do the players at your table feel about this? I know this doesn't directly address your question, but it is a more important consideration that role-playing.
That's the disadvantage of Leadership and rightly so. Yes you get a cohort but he/she is entitled to a share of the treasure.
I see a lot of very bad analogies when every one is giving his opinion.
For me, it depends a lot on the situation and the characters, but like some here I think that a cohort that participate directly in combat should get at least a half share of treasure. A cohort that is only doing crafting should not get a share of treasure.
Reasons for this :
- on a RP point, adventurers are not a firm or an army, they are a group of people who are gathering their talents and risk their lives to gain something, like pirates did in the carribean sea. And like these pirates did, you should get a share for your work.
- And to use Lowroller analogy, if player A is taking the leadership feat to get a cohort that helps all the group (including player B), why should he be the only one to pay for the cohort stuff ? Player A already paid a feat to make the party better and you want him to also pay for the cohort with his share of gold and treasure ?
I do it like this:
Playerina has a WBL amount of money to spend.
He can spend 100% on himself, and 0% on Cohortizord, OR he could balance.
He never gets more than 100% though.
He is getting his share, but it's coming out of Playerina's part.
Outgame perfect sense, ingame Playerina can think of his/her own reason. Let the player work for this feat! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See it as a squire vs knight.
I contract the knight. He gets full share. If he wants to bring some unbearded boy to bear his shield, don his armor and feed his horse, fine. But he pays his wages.
Same goes with the wizard apprentice. Pr the cleric's altar boy.
If the cohort ask for full share, then the group can just tell him not to come.
Leadership is already broken enough withoit needing a boost in WBL.
The cohort is basically a hireling of a specialized variety. He/She gets paid by their liege (the PC).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cohort gets no extra cut. Neither does the Druids cat, the Summoners flying monkey, or the Cavaliers camel.
One Feat does not buy you an improved Companion with a side benefit of getting extra loot shares for what is, ultimately, your benefit.
If the party wants to throw in a slush fund to trick out the cohort then that is up to them, but the certainly aren't (nor should the be) obliged to.
- And to use Lowroller analogy, if player A is taking the leadership feat to get a cohort that helps all the group (including player B), why should he be the only one to pay for the cohort stuff ? Player A already paid a feat to make the party better and you want him to also pay for the cohort with his share of gold and treasure ?
Because player B took Alertness (which help the whole group to notice when they are being ambushed) and that doesn't mean everybody in the group should get less money because of that.
The fact that Leadership is horribly broken and like six zillion more powerful than Alertness (or any other feat for that matter) doesn't mean you should get extra reward in adition of having a broken feat.
As Shifty said, the Druid's companion doesn't get a share of the treasure either. If I get a tiger as my cohort (which I can, by the Bestiary rules), why does my cat gets a share and the druid's doesnt?
Oh, I get it. It's because it's an animal. Fine. Does the wizard's Imp familiar get a share of the treasure too? He is sharing the dangers, and is am intelligent sentient being. Probably more intelligent and sentient than your barbarian cohort, by the way. Why isn't him being paid? Or the bound elemental, or the undeads created by the necromancer. Do they get a share too?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cohort gets no extra cut. Neither does the Druids cat, the Summoners flying monkey, or the Cavaliers camel.
One Feat does not buy you an improved Companion with a side benefit of getting extra loot shares for what is, ultimately, your benefit.
If the party wants to throw in a slush fund to trick out the cohort then that is up to them, but the certainly aren't (nor should the be) obliged to.
^^ This ^^
"My horse should get a cut since it kicked that guy in battle." ~ Friendly Neighborhood Paladin
"That wasn't a battle. That was the stableboy trying to use a normal brush instead of the pearl handled virgin goat hair brush that the two of you share, A$$." ~ The rogue
Loot allocation is generally not GM business, it is the Players problem/issue/blessing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, this falls in the same category as this >>
Player: "How much XP is a horse?"
GM: "Why?"
Player: "Coz we are 200 xp short for leveling."
GM: "Horses are no XP."
GM should be nice, but focus on the story. You're living a tale, not doing bookkeeping! :)
|
|
The issue here is that each PC will receive a smaller share. Thats the real problem when you boil it down, right? How do the players at your table feel about this? I know this doesn't directly address your question, but it is a more important consideration that role-playing.That's the disadvantage of Leadership and rightly so. Yes you get a cohort but he/she is entitled to a share of the treasure.That's your opinion, mine differs a lot.
If player A takes a feat it shouldn't mean that player B gets less treasure. When you start looking at what's fair and not it is important to remember that players are the real people you need to consider. NPC's dont get angry unless you say they do.
The leadership feat is one of the most frequently disallowed feats in pathfinder just because most GM's cant be bothered to deal with arguments like this and i cant really blame them.
In my opinion (note OPINION, i dont pretend it's fact) there is a set order of things regarding loot/equipment when taking leadership feat.
1. Group needs to agree on system for equipping the cohort. Does he get a share, does he get a full share or a smaller one, will extra treasure be added to compensate, should the leader of the cohort pay for it out of his pocket, should the gm simply give the cohort stuff as he sees fit etc. etc. There are endless variations, the important part is that no real living person gets angry because in that case it's better to scrap the feat altogether.
2. Once it's decided how the cohort should be financed a story can be made up to make it work in game. Or it can be ignored completely with a silent agreement never to bring it up. A cohort can be anything from a paid mercenary with fixed salary to someone who decided to serve you for three years because you saved his family.
If you do it in this order there should be no problem. If you get a cohort and then start demanding double share of treasure there will most definitly be...
The cohort follows WBL and since it can level it is entitled to gear as well.
Once again, that is a disadvantage to having the feat. It is a fact and not an opinion unless you find dividing the treasure up amongst an extra person is an advantage. There is rule or inclination that feats are always fair, look at the item creation feats. Leadership doesn't work like other feats so you can't compare it to other feats.
Leave a cohort out of his share and see how long he sticks around.
Loot allocation is generally not GM business, it is the Players problem/issue/blessing.Actually it is when following WBL. GMs have to make sure everyone is with in WBL.
Which is just another reason to not follow WBL except as a very rough guide of whole party wealth.
Loot allocation is generally not GM business, it is the Players problem/issue/blessing.Actually it is when following WBL. GMs have to make sure everyone is with in WBL.
So if I decide to give my Cloak of protection to another party member, you'll forbid me? How? Does the sky open, a sound voice talks and say "I'm the God of Adventurers, you can't give that to him because you'll not be in the guidelines of wealth by level"?
|
|
So if I decide to give my Cloak of protection to another party member, you'll forbid me? How? Does the sky open, a sound voice talks and say "I'm the God of Adventurers, you can't give that to him because you'll not be in the guidelines of wealth by level"?Loot allocation is generally not GM business, it is the Players problem/issue/blessing.Actually it is when following WBL. GMs have to make sure everyone is with in WBL.
Actually, according to SKR and the CRB, WBL is a rule.
Now like said, if you continue to leave the cohort out of his share then he will end up leaving. Cihorts are not automations that do your every bidding, they are a member of the party who get their own XP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the disadvantage of Leadership and rightly so. Yes you get a cohort but he/she is entitled to a share of the treasure.
Actually it is when following WBL. GMs have to make sure everyone is with in WBL.
Do you find the irony of those two statements?
When there is a cohort, you think it has to get a share, because otherwise he won't follow you.
If he gets a share, everybody get's less treasure.
As the GM has to make sure that everybody is with in WBL, he has to increase the treasure to make up for the fact that everybody is getting less treasure.
So it's just a moot point :P
Everybody in the party take a cohort. So the treasure is divided by half. Therefore, nobody is in his WBL. So the GM doubles the treasure, because he "has" to "make sure" that everybody is in the WBL.
What was the disadventage you were talking about?
I'm with the other posters who have said that the cohort is the PC with leadership's responsibility. If he can convince the rest of the PCs to give up part of their shares, fine, that's a decision among the PCs. But he can't really have any expectation they must comply. That's part of the responsibility of leadership - to provide for your followers.
That said, the cohort will follow without being given anything. He starts with appropriate equipment but the point is, he's loyal to the PC, even if he gets nothing after that. It is, however, in the PC's best interest to equip his cohort and keep him reasonably equipped. Not only can that lead to the fair and generous leadership score modifier, I would also say it helps him avoid the "caused death of cohort" penalty for possible subsequent cohorts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, according to SKR and the CRB, WBL is a rule.
It's not. It even says that you can give them half as much or double it depending of the campaign, being high magic or low magic.
Now like said, if you continue to leave the cohort out of his share then he will end up leaving. Cihorts are not automations that do your every bidding, they are a member of the party who get their own XP.
That depends enterely on the cohort. My squire isn't there to earn treasure, he is there because he wants to learn to be a knight. Morgan Freeman character in Kevin Costner's Robin Hood is there because he owe him his life. A Pegasi cohort might be there because I tied him with a golden lace and now it's bound to me. Alfred follows Bruce Wayne because he is absolutelly loyal to the family.
And none of the above get a full share of the treasure. At best, the squire and Alfred get a wage. Morgan Freeman Character and the Pegasi actually go for free as long as they are feed.
Shadows word is law, so we should do that.