Actually that's false, the party is STILL in WBL. It's not the GM's lookout that the party spread part of it's WBL on their cohorts.
I know, but not in Shadowsoul opinion.
Actually it is when following WBL. GMs have to make sure everyone is with in WBL.Shifty wrote:
Loot allocation is generally not GM business, it is the Players problem/issue/blessing.
and
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.
I agree that the party doesn't need more treasure just because there are cohorts, the WBL doesn't work like that. And I also agree that WBL is a guideline and not a hard rule. I agree that the cohort isn't entitled to his own WBL too.
That's why I say the PC with the leadership feat can give him a wage, half his share, or the whole share. It doesn't mind, it's up to him. But the rest of the party doesn't need to share his treasure with the knight's squire or the inquisitor/monk/caped vigilante majordomo Alfred.
But Shadowsoul was expressing the opposite. And if you *have* to follow WBL, and the cohort *have* to have it's own WBL, then the only way is to increase the treasure. Otherwise, either youL have less WBL in the PC, or the cohort doesn't get his own WBL, or the world explodes in paradox while you try to share X among Y+1 and get the same resoults than if you share X among Y
In one campaign, the one cohort has gotten at various times, no share, 1/2 share, and free loot (we awarded him Greater Bracers of Archery to replace his Lesser Bracers). The Lesser Bracers and a nice bow went to the Cleric.
I just picked up a cohort in another campaign, but have no idea how we will divide up treasure with him.
|
But Shadowsoul was expressing the opposite. And if you *have* to follow WBL, and the cohort *have* to have it's own WBL, then the only way is to increase the treasure. Otherwise, either youL have less WBL in the PC, or the cohort doesn't get his own WBL, or the world explodes in paradox while you try to share X among Y+1 and get the same resoults than if you share X among Y
And if you have to increase the treasure, than you have to increase the CR's appropriately, so the mechanical benefit of taking Leadership... Is that you get a jerk who tags along making fights harder while not contributing as much. Treat him like any other pet, let the player come up with a suitable backstory (including why he isn't getting a cut if that's important to the group) and all the problems go away.
As mentioned previously, there are plenty of examples in literature and pop fiction of characters who contribute to a group without being equal members (or at least not getting paid).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the fact that the cohort is less experienced (at least 2 levels below the rest of the party) is sufficient reason not to give them a full share of the treasure. In our own campaign, the player keeping track of the treasure decided that my cohort deserved a full share of the treasure. While OOC I disagreed with him, IC my PC was delighted. Of course, he did hold back an amount worth about 4 shares of the loot for group expenses (raise dead, restoration, etc.).
All in all, it is probably best left as a group decision. In my experience, a cohort in a sufficiently large party can do quite well on hand-me-down magic items from the rest of the party without specifically being given a share of the loot.
| 1 person 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.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?
Real paid interns (not volunteer interns) face the same challenges as their employers, but they get less pay, less reputation, and less knowledge compared to employers.
The idea is you get contacts, strategies, ideas, gear, etc from their working their. In the future, assuming they have a good rep/note from employer they can get better pay or go out on their own and do great.
In response to the OP,here is how we dealt with my cohort in Shackled City. It's kinda specific, but maybe this would help:
I asked the DM to take the feat, he OK'd it, first step done.
I was playing a dwarf cleric, and he attracted a dwarf favored soul. I was allowed to make the cohort, he came with standard gear, maybe a magic weapon, I can't really remember. Anyways, the DM did a great job tying the cohort's appearance into the story- turns out my cleric was a long-lost son of Clan Splintershield!
Being as he was a few levels behind the party, and a healer, the cohort stayed out of the way, basically tagging along behind the damage-dealers to heal them so the Cleric could focus on other spells.
Whenever there was treasure, the party divided it up amongst ourselves. When a magic item was replaced by a better one, the lesser item was offered to the cohort, who graciously accepted it.
The cohort was simply excited to be following the new clan leader on his epic adventure.
I find that I am squarely in the "cohort deserves a share" camp.I'm seeing two kinds of arguments from the other camp.
1. An assertion. "The cohort gets less money." That sentence is either followed by the equivalent of "PERIOD!" or "Duh!".
2. A master-servant type of reltionship is claimed between Leader and Cohort where no such reltionship needs to exist.
BUT let's pretend it did. If a knight had a squire "to don his armor, bring him his shield, and feed his horse", that only directly benefits the knight. Having the knight be stronger indirectly benefits everyone else, but so what? That's like when a Fighter takes Weapon Specialization or Toughness.
If everyone comes to the squire to help "don their armor, bring them their shield, and feed their horse" then he's not the knight's squire, he's EVERYONE'S squire. Everyone making use of his squire then expecting only the knight to pay would anger the knight, no? I know it would anger me if I were the knight.
|
I think everyone is mistaking just what a cohort is. First of all, a cohort isn't a servant. I think some people have been playing Skyrim too long. Lydia is given to you by the Jarl of Whiterun, a cohort seeks you out to help you because of your reknown. That is why there are modifiers you go by. Now the DM has full authority to say what goes with regards to the cohort. You treat it like just a mechanical advantage and nothing more then you may wake up to find your cohort gone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PC and NPC wealth by level differ. By level 7, a PC in normal game would have around 23,000 gold. A heroic NPC at level 7 would have 6,000. Since the cohort would be an NPC 2 levels lower, they would be level 5 and have 3,500 gold.
Using these tables, I have no problem whether the wealth comes out of the player's share or the party share. The amount given to the NPC cohort is comparatively minor. Either the character can have 3,500 less by level 7 (which still gives him 20,000 to play with), or a party of five can each have 700 less.
Of course, if the character who employes the cohort pays him more than his heroic NPC wealth by level, I would consider that to be a part of the
"fairness and generosity" category that boosts the character's leadership score by 1 for either his next cohort or for increasing the level of the current one (if the cohort was previously more than 2 levels below the character).
2. A master-servant type of reltionship is claimed between Leader and Cohort where no such reltionship needs to exist.
It may not be master-servant, but is generally going to be personal. The cohort has loyalty to the leader, not anyone else. He may have a good relationship with the others, may even be downright helpful. But he's loyal to the PC who took the leadership feat.
If everyone comes to the squire to help "don their armor, bring them their shield, and feed their horse" then he's not the knight's squire, he's EVERYONE'S squire. Everyone making use of his squire then expecting only the knight to pay would anger the knight, no? I know it would anger me if I were the knight.
If everyone's coming to the squire for help, the knight should be pissed. They should be coming to him to ask for the squire's help. Otherwise, that squire isn't his cohort, he's everybody's servant. That's the difference here. The cohort has a relationship with the leader. That leader may share the boon of the cohort, in which case, smart PCs will kick in a bit to aid the cohort or at least be understanding about cutting the cohort in for loot. But, again, it's up to the players and most of us have been of the opinion that the primary responsibility for the cohort lies with the cohort's leader.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're also screwing the rest of the party (to whatever degree) unless you're accounting for the cohort by raising the treasure you're giving out.
One guy took a feat. Now that player is gaining two portions of the treasure distribution? If the rest of the party is fine with that, so be it, but you are not playing a game that is fair to the other players. They didn't sign on to give their cash to Tiny Tim there. Joe Schmoe made that decision all on his lonesome. Leadership also means that this new guy Joe brought in isn't operating on the same level as everybody else. He's at least 2 levels lower.
As Starbuck said previously
"Real paid interns (not volunteer interns) face the same challenges as their employers, but they get less pay, less reputation, and less knowledge compared to employers.
The idea is you get contacts, strategies, ideas, gear, etc from their working their. In the future, assuming they have a good rep/note from employer they can get better pay or go out on their own and do great."
If I hire a secretary to help me with my work, as an equal partner I should be paying for my own expenses, including that secretary. If you came to me and asked if he/she could assist you with your duties, I may ask you tohelp pay her wage, at least for the time they're assisting you. If you expect to help pay your secretary's wage because her singing brightens up the office and her organizational skills are keeping your clutter out of my way though, I might seriously consider whether you're worth having co-worker.
If you are going to take this route, then to be fair, any druids, cavaliers et all who start demanding a share for their horse/bear/flying monkey are well within their rights to do so. If I were playing a wizard and the GM decreed that a characters cohort deserved equal pay because he was benefiting the party, I'd hand my imp familiar a wand of cure light wounds and start picketing for equal rights for imps.
So:
The party, NOT the GM should be deciding loot distribution. First and foremost.
If the GM has taken it upon himself to dictate standards of loot distribution and decides that the cohort gets a share, he needs to realize how that impacts the other players in the group who took Deadly Aim instead of Leadership. You're now saying that not only does that feat give the player who took it a second character to control, customized to make his main character perform more efficiently, but it also gives him double loot shares. That's a lot of oomph for a feat, especially since one person is taking the feat, but everyone is paying for its benefits.
Also
An assertion. "The cohort gets less money." That sentence is either followed by the equivalent of "PERIOD!" or "Duh!".
This is insulting. You have been given numerous good reasons a person might adventure with the party without receiving an equal share of the loot. Just because you came in here with an agenda doesn't mean you should be snide.
If everyone comes to the squire to help "don their armor, bring them their shield, and feed their horse" then he's not the knight's squire, he's EVERYONE'S squire. Everyone making use of his squire then expecting only the knight to pay would anger the knight, no? I know it would anger me if I were the knight.
So if the Wizard gets Craft Woundreus Item, he should charge other members who want a magic item?
If the druid's bear help the wizard to take off a pesky goblin which is threatening him, does the bear take a share? And what if the bear is the fighter's cohort instead of the druid's companion?
If the wizard gets an Improved Familiar Imp, which allow to Commune, and the questions help the whole group, should the group pay the imp?
What if the wizard doesn't get Improved familiar imp, but instead take Leadership and an Imp Cohort. Should he get paid now?
There is no *need* for a master-servant relationship. It could be your squire. It could be your younger brother, an old family friend, or a guy you saved his life. Could be a lover, or an apprentice.
He is NOT your equal. That's why the rules FORBID him to raise level beyond your own level -2 and he gets less experience when he klls the dragon with the party.
The easiest fix is to remove the cohort form the leadership feat though. You get all other followers, but not the cohort. Having two characters instead of one is way too much for a feat, and asking the party to pay for your feat is like asking the party to pay for Craft woundreus item.
If I were in your party and your squire ask for a full share, while being way worse (-2 levels to start with), I'd politely ask you to leave him at home, doing whatever stuff he ussually does. The world is too dangerous for a underleveled squire to follow us, and all that roleplaying stuff.
I think everyone is mistaking just what a cohort is. First of all, a cohort isn't a servant. I think some people have been playing Skyrim too long. Lydia is given to you by the Jarl of Whiterun, a cohort seeks you out to help you because of your reknown. That is why there are modifiers you go by. Now the DM has full authority to say what goes with regards to the cohort. You treat it like just a mechanical advantage and nothing more then you may wake up to find your cohort gone.
The DM isn't God. In my character background, I have a thing or two to say. Sure, we have to colaborate and make the character so it fits in the campaign, but if I want a cohort that is my little sister which I have to take care, which happen to sing very well and is a bard, the DM can't say my cohort is a barbarian dude from Cimmeria that ask a share of the treasure, because I don't want a barbarian dude, I want a little sister.
I'll ask the DM if my little sister works in his campaign. If it doesn't, i'll take some other feat instead of leadership, no problem. Such as Improved iron will, which is "just a mechanical adventage". But the Cohort *CAN* be a servant. A Cavalier character who takes leadership to have a squire is perfectly fitting in most games.
PC and NPC wealth by level differ. By level 7, a PC in normal game would have around 23,000 gold. A heroic NPC at level 7 would have 6,000. Since the cohort would be an NPC 2 levels lower, they would be level 5 and have 3,500 gold.
Using these tables, I have no problem whether the wealth comes out of the player's share or the party share. The amount given to the NPC cohort is comparatively minor. Either the character can have 3,500 less by level 7 (which still gives him 20,000 to play with), or a party of five can each have 700 less.
Of course, if the character who employes the cohort pays him more than his heroic NPC wealth by level, I would consider that to be a part of the
"fairness and generosity" category that boosts the character's leadership score by 1 for either his next cohort or for increasing the level of the current one (if the cohort was previously more than 2 levels below the character).
This.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds to me like someone is trying to get a bigger piece of the pie.
The leadership feat is taken with the understanding that it is the leaders responsibility to take care of their followers. There are extensive penalties for failing to do so. Part of the responsibility of taking care of your followers is giving them appropriate equipment for them to perform their tasks. It is not the job of the rest of the adventuring group to provide for a characters followers/cohorts. Now if they choose to do so goody for them they can have a cupcake. But it would be unreasonable to expect them to pay for another characters mechanical advantage.
|
|
I think everyone is mistaking just what a cohort is. First of all, a cohort isn't a servant. I think some people have been playing Skyrim too long. Lydia is given to you by the Jarl of Whiterun, a cohort seeks you out to help you because of your reknown. That is why there are modifiers you go by. Now the DM has full authority to say what goes with regards to the cohort. You treat it like just a mechanical advantage and nothing more then you may wake up to find your cohort gone.The DM isn't God. In my character background, I have a thing or two to say. Sure, we have to colaborate and make the character so it fits in the campaign, but if I want a cohort that is my little sister which I have to take care, which happen to sing very well and is a bard, the DM can't say my cohort is a barbarian dude from Cimmeria that ask a share of the treasure, because I don't want a barbarian dude, I want a little sister.
I'll ask the DM if my little sister works in his campaign. If it doesn't, i'll take some other feat instead of leadership, no problem. Such as Improved iron will, which is "just a mechanical adventage". But the Cohort *CAN* be a servant. A Cavalier character who takes leadership to have a squire is perfectly fitting in most games.
Actually he is to be blunt. He makes all the final decisions as to what happens with in the game world.
|
|
As long as the cohort is getting his share from somewhere I don't care but treating the cohort like a mechanical advantage without giving nothing in return is poor.
It's the responsibility of the guy who took Leadership to care for his cohort. Maybe I don't like the guy. Maybe I didn't feel he was necessary. It's not my responsibility to keep him happy, it's the responsibility of the guy who decided he needed a lackey. If I decide to throw this guy a bone and give him my old +1 shortswort because I just got a new +2 one, that's me acting acting out of the goodness of my heart. If someone in the group took Leadership and then informed me that I had to pay his new traveling court bard out of my share of the treasure, someone might be getting my shortsword, but they aren't going to be happy about receiving it.
As long as the cohort is getting his share from somewhere I don't care but treating the cohort like a mechanical advantage without giving nothing in return is poor.
What's his share?
If, as posted by Bookrat, his share is around a 3.04% of the whole treasure, I don't really care.
A party of 5 PC of 7th level have roughly 115.000g using the WBL guidelines. And 3.500 of those belong to the Cohort, using the same WBL guidelines (WBL of a 7th level PC vs a 5th lvl NPC).
So if we find 100 gold pieces, and the Cohort gets three gold pieces and four copper pieces, I don't really care who pay.
But I've the feeling that the cohort is going to get less money this way, that if he gets for free the party no longer used gear, such as a +1 sword because I got a +2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually he is to be blunt. He makes all the final decisions as to what happens with in the game world.
He doesn't. He can't decide I'm going to play a female fat monk with STR 8 and CHA 19 named Feliciana who took Skill focus in Profesion (gardener).
And if he tries, I'd just leave the game, and tell every other player "I'm going to DM a different game exactly at this same time, weekly. There you can have decisions on your own PC, like what feats you want to take, if you want your PC be a female monk or a male fighter, or if you want to have a little sister instead of a barbarian adventurer following your steps. If anyone is interesting, we can roll the PC right now".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually he is to be blunt. He makes all the final decisions as to what happens with in the game world.The DM isn't God. In my character background, I have a thing or two to say. Sure, we have to colaborate and make the character so it fits in the campaign, but if I want a cohort that is my little sister which I have to take care, which happen to sing very well and is a bard, the DM can't say my cohort is a barbarian dude from Cimmeria that ask a share of the treasure, because I don't want a barbarian dude, I want a little sister.
I'll ask the DM if my little sister works in his campaign. If it doesn't, i'll take some other feat instead of leadership, no problem. Such as Improved iron will, which is "just a mechanical adventage". But the Cohort *CAN* be a servant. A Cavalier character who takes leadership to have a squire is perfectly fitting in most games.
If the GM is dictating party decisions, than he is over-stepping his bounds and I'm frankly glad I don't have to play in his group.
The DM isn't God. In my character background, I have a thing or two to say. Sure, we have to colaborate and make the character so it fits in the campaign, but if I want a cohort that is my little sister which I have to take care, which happen to sing very well and is a bard, the DM can't say my cohort is a barbarian dude from Cimmeria that ask a share of the treasure, because I don't want a barbarian dude, I want a little sister.I'll ask the DM if my little sister works in his campaign. If it doesn't, i'll take some other feat instead of leadership, no problem. Such as Improved iron will, which is "just a mechanical adventage". But the Cohort *CAN* be a servant. A Cavalier character who takes leadership to have a squire is perfectly fitting in most games.
Part of the point of picking up Leadership as a player's choice is that the player probably has a particular idea for a cohort in mind. I'll usually discuss any cohort ideas with the player taking leadership and I'll offer to build it for him based on those ideas, alternatively, I'll just let that player build the cohort once we've established a few ground rules.
When it comes to play time, I generally let the player control the cohort in combat - saves wear and tear on me - but I would veto some sorts of blatantly suicidal actions. The cohort is loyal, but he does have a sense of self-preservation. And I play the cohort for role-playing outside of combat.
There may be times when a player takes leadership without a particular sort of cohort in mind, that's when I would provide whatever would seem like an interesting fit. But if I were to impose a specific NPC as a cohort, that cohort comes for free - no feat needed.
I did have occasion to write up 3 NPCs for PCs in my game as a result of drawing the Knight card from the Deck of Many Things. I decided to base them on cohort rules, just starting at 4th level rather than having their level based on the PC's leadership score. Decided to tailor their fighting abilities around areas their leader PCs lacked. Turned out reasonably well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems this thread has run its course. We are just going in circles.
Bottom line for me: A Cohort does not have a "right" to a full share of treasure. The party would be foolish not to give up some treasure to any cohort that aids the party. Cohorts are not "2nd PC" and as such the GM could/should have the cohort react to poor or good treatment.
But I realize that both sides of this thread seem entrenched and as such I do not expect minds to change.
I hope everyone has great games. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually he is to be blunt. He makes all the final decisions as to what happens with in the game world.He doesn't. He can't decide I'm going to play a female fat monk with STR 8 and CHA 19 named Feliciana who took Skill focus in Profesion (gardener).
And if he tries, I'd just leave the game, and tell every other player "I'm going to DM a different game exactly at this same time, weekly. There you can have decisions on your own PC, like what feats you want to take, if you want your PC be a female monk or a male fighter, or if you want to have a little sister instead of a barbarian adventurer following your steps. If anyone is interesting, we can roll the PC right now".
Player "I shall call her Felicia?"
Dm "NO! Her name is Bernie!"Player "aww"
Actually he is to be blunt. He makes all the final decisions as to what happens with in the game world.I think everyone is mistaking just what a cohort is. First of all, a cohort isn't a servant. I think some people have been playing Skyrim too long. Lydia is given to you by the Jarl of Whiterun, a cohort seeks you out to help you because of your reknown. That is why there are modifiers you go by. Now the DM has full authority to say what goes with regards to the cohort. You treat it like just a mechanical advantage and nothing more then you may wake up to find your cohort gone.The DM isn't God. In my character background, I have a thing or two to say. Sure, we have to colaborate and make the character so it fits in the campaign, but if I want a cohort that is my little sister which I have to take care, which happen to sing very well and is a bard, the DM can't say my cohort is a barbarian dude from Cimmeria that ask a share of the treasure, because I don't want a barbarian dude, I want a little sister.
I'll ask the DM if my little sister works in his campaign. If it doesn't, i'll take some other feat instead of leadership, no problem. Such as Improved iron will, which is "just a mechanical adventage". But the Cohort *CAN* be a servant. A Cavalier character who takes leadership to have a squire is perfectly fitting in most games.
He is, and he isn't. He can't force you to take Leadership (though he can certainly ban you from doing so). He can't really force you to accept a certain cohort. Your character could simply send him away.
Leadership is something you should discuss with your DM AND your party before you even consider taking. The rules and expectations should be agreed upon and suitable to everyone.
Is it fair to place the entire burden of equipping the cohort on the leader? Sure. But, don't whine if the cohort then makes it his sole duty to make his leader as powerful and prominent as possible.
Is it fair to levy a "tax" on other player's characters to support one player's "character enhancement"? Sure. But, in that case the "enhancement" needs to be to the benefit of everyone, with maybe, just maybe, only the slightest emphasis on the leader for paying the additional "feat tax".
I have seen Leadership used a number of times. The best advice I can give: Don't allow a ready-made character to just appear in the group. Give the Leader a level 1 NPC (not necessarily a NPC class, although that can work, too) and allow him/her to level up by the normal acquisition of XP, with appropriate wealth for the cohort's level. At first, the financial burden will be negligible to the point of nearly non-existent. Survivability will be very low, and impact on story and mechanics will be very minimal early on. But levels will also come very quickly early on. Let the Leader control how the character develops, as any master would with an apprentice. By the time you have a fully realized cohort, he/she will have become a fully ingrained member of the party, with roles established and expected, and hardly a burden on anyone.
Part of the point of picking up Leadership as a player's choice is that the player probably has a particular idea for a cohort in mind. I'll usually discuss any cohort ideas with the player taking leadership and I'll offer to build it for him based on those ideas, alternatively, I'll just let that player build the cohort once we've established a few ground rules.
When it comes to play time, I generally let the player control the cohort in combat - saves wear and tear on me - but I would veto some sorts of blatantly suicidal actions. The cohort is loyal, but he does have a sense of self-preservation. And I play the cohort for role-playing outside of combat.
I use the same guidelines, *if* I allow leadership at all.
In the campaign I'm DMing now, I depowered Leadership so it doesn't give you cohort. It gives you the minions though (which are particularly important in this campaign, Way of the Wicked), and slightly better followers (instead of level 1, they are CR1. Which means 3rd level warriors or 2nd level fighters)
Of course the leadership feat, as every other feat, should be taken with DM approval and a healty agreement of what is going in the campaign. You can't take the "gunslinger" feat if there aren't firearms, that's obvious. And you can't have a Samurai follower if you are playing a Viking campaign, unless the DM and you find some explanation about it.
But while the DM has always the right to approve or disaprove something, he doesn't have the right to play the game for the players. He can't say "you'll take Skill focus instead of power attack", or "your next level is going to be monk" or "your cohort is going to be a viking raider". Nor he can divide the treasure, or make the players to turn right instead of left when there is a fork in the corridor. At that point he can just take all the PC sheets, go to his home, and roll die an play alone.
There may be times when a player takes leadership without a particular sort of cohort in mind, that's when I would provide whatever would seem like an interesting fit. But if I were to impose a specific NPC as a cohort, that cohort comes for free - no feat needed.
In my current campaign, "cohorts" and followers come by dozens. The PC take some of them and not others. But they aren't "bound" to you by leadership, and they aren't loyal by RAW. Some of them, actually, DO betray the party.
The DM can put NPC in the game, and those can be part of the adventuring party and/or take a share of the treasure. Paizo's Jade Reagent is a good example. However, the Players are the one who choose IF they ally with those NPC, and if they accept their payment asking.
The cohort is different. Is a loyal servitor of the player who take Leadership. That's why it's called "leadership" and not "you got a buddy".
A player who takes a feat that unilaterally force other PC to give up gold so he can have a cohort is like a player who take a power attack feat that force other players to take a penalty to hit so he can have a bonus to damage.
He is, and he isn't. He can't force you to take Leadership (though he can certainly ban you from doing so). He can't really force you to accept a certain cohort. Your character could simply send him away.
Leadership is something you should discuss with your DM AND your party before you even consider taking. The rules and expectations should be agreed upon and suitable to everyone.
Sure. Just like you should discuss with your DM and your party if you are going to build a Summoner, or be a Witch, or even play a Paladin. The game is collaborative, and nobody can force the others to just shut up and swallow his decisions.
That's the reason I'm against with Bob taking Leadership and making everybody that they *have* to pay a share.
Is it fair to place the entire burden of equipping the cohort on the leader? Sure. But, don't whine if the cohort then makes it his sole duty to make his leader as powerful and prominent as possible.
Of course. And the Cohort can't whine if he isn't healed by the party cleric or if he is not boosted by the party wizard's haste.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that I am squarely in the "cohort deserves a share" camp.I'm seeing two kinds of arguments from the other camp.
1. An assertion. "The cohort gets less money." That sentence is either followed by the equivalent of "PERIOD!" or "Duh!".
2. A master-servant type of reltionship is claimed between Leader and Cohort where no such reltionship needs to exist.
BUT let's pretend it did. If a knight had a squire "to don his armor, bring him his shield, and feed his horse", that only directly benefits the knight. Having the knight be stronger indirectly benefits everyone else, but so what? That's like when a Fighter takes Weapon Specialization or Toughness.
If everyone comes to the squire to help "don their armor, bring them their shield, and feed their horse" then he's not the knight's squire, he's EVERYONE'S squire. Everyone making use of his squire then expecting only the knight to pay would anger the knight, no? I know it would anger me if I were the knight.
This sort of play and lawyering is fine on the boards or if you are planning on running a table of 1, but it doesn't work in groups as you've clearly discovered in your own group.
There are other players at the table. Unless you are passing the cohort's character sheet around and sharing the responsibilities for playing, building, and equipping him, he is undeniably *your* (as in you, the player) servant regardless of how you arbitrarily define your character relationships in game.
He is, and he isn't. He can't force you to take Leadership (though he can certainly ban you from doing so). He can't really force you to accept a certain cohort. Your character could simply send him away.
Leadership is something you should discuss with your DM AND your party before you even consider taking. The rules and expectations should be agreed upon and suitable to everyone.
Sure. Just like you should discuss with your DM and your party if you are going to build a Summoner, or be a Witch, or even play a Paladin. The game is collaborative, and nobody can force the others to just shut up and swallow his decisions.
That's the reason I'm against with Bob taking Leadership and making everybody that they *have* to pay a share.
Is it fair to place the entire burden of equipping the cohort on the leader? Sure. But, don't whine if the cohort then makes it his sole duty to make his leader as powerful and prominent as possible.Of course. And the Cohort can't whine if he isn't healed by the party cleric or if he is not boosted by the party wizard's haste.
I can't tell whether you're agreeing with me, or arguing with me by sort of making the same point that I am. Maybe I'm trying to read too much tone into your responses.
Either way, refusing to heal or haste a cohort, is somewhere on par with the wizard saying, "It's your sword. I'm not ever casting magic weapon or mend on it." I wouldn't be a member of such a party for long, I think.
Besides... cohorts can only whine if they are fully realized persons. Mere "mechanical advantages" never complain. They just buff and heal and craft and sympathetically reinforce every weakness in their Leader.
Firstly: The GM has precisely ZERO say in how treasure is allocated within the party. He gets to pick the treasure to hand out, sure, but after that point it is entirely in the hands of the players.
Now, this becomes interesting because if one of the players has Leadership, a GM-controlled character has a vested interest in how treasure is distributed. The cohort can discuss it with the party, certainly, and can try to get good terms for himself, but at no point should the GM ever say "it shall be spread thusly, so sayeth the GM". Should the GM determine that the cohort feels badly treated by the party, he is well within his power to have that cohort walk away, but he shouldn't use the cohort's decision as a stick to make the players do what he wants.
How the players then ultimately choose to share loot is up to them. I'm starting to think I'm pretty lucky as a GM: my players have a "take what you want/can use, everything else goes into the shared party pot. Party pot is either general consumables, or stuff to sell later. If someone wants to use cash from the pot to buy something, they can, we'll hash out the amount case-by-case" policy. I actually can't remember the last time one of my players had a problem with this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hypothetical for those of you who fall into the camp that "the cohort is the sole responsibility of the person who took Leadership." Would you complain if a cleric healbot cohort charged you the going rate every time you needed him to heal you? And if not, why not? After all, you've defined him as, effectively, not part of the party, so should he not be expected to treat you as would any other NPC spellcaster?
Ever heard someone say "Well it's "your" child that keeps getting into trouble"?
And then "Ahhhh "son" makes makes good grades".
The cohort is good as long as the other members are getting something out of it, but the second it turns costly they won't nothing to do with it.
I can't tell whether you're agreeing with me, or arguing with me by sort of making the same point that I am. Maybe I'm trying to read too much tone into your responses.
I'm agreeing with you, for the most part.
Either way, refusing to heal or haste a cohort, is somewhere on par with the wizard saying, "It's your sword. I'm not ever casting magic weapon or mend on it." I wouldn't be a member of such a party for long, I think.
I agree. Specially with the "your cohort is like your sword" part.
Same goes if the wizard is the cohort and refuse to mend every sword, except his leader's one. If the NPC cohort refuse to mend the cleric's mace, it's quite obvious that the party cleric isn't going to spend his healing on him either.
The cohort is NOT a full fledged member of the group. He is a cohort of his leader. Which kind of relationship they have, is up to them, but he is not "a wizard", he is "the wizard's apprentice". If he were a full member of the party, he will be able to level up and catch his master and the rest of the party. He can't, because he is not a hero, he is a sidekick. That's the In Game reason why he doesn't get full payment. He is an apprentice.
Besides... cohorts can only whine if they are fully realized persons. Mere "mechanical advantages" never complain. They just buff and heal and craft and sympathetically reinforce every weakness in their Leader.
Another reason to take the feat out of the game. It's way beyond the power scope of a feat.
The cohort is an intern:)
Ever heard someone say... And then "Ahhhh "son" makes makes good grades".
The cohort is good as long as the other members are getting something out of it, but the second it turns costly they won't nothing to do with it.
I have honestly never heard anyone say this.
But, to your point, what is the role of the cohort? If he is filling a hole in the party (healer/buffer for instance) then he is, and absolutely should be, the responsibility of the party and "thank you very much to the player that sacrificed a feat to bring him to us!"
I have honestly never heard anyone say this.Ever heard someone say... And then "Ahhhh "son" makes makes good grades".
The cohort is good as long as the other members are getting something out of it, but the second it turns costly they won't nothing to do with it.
Really? It's kind of a cliche thing. Ever watch sitcoms? It's fairly prevalent in family comedies.
He's *your* son when he does something bad. He's *our* or *my* son when he does something good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hypothetical for those of you who fall into the camp that "the cohort is the sole responsibility of the person who took Leadership." Would you complain if a cleric healbot cohort charged you the going rate every time you needed him to heal you? And if not, why not? After all, you've defined him as, effectively, not part of the party, so should he not be expected to treat you as would any other NPC spellcaster?
Well, I haven't defined him as not part of the party. I've said he is not a full member. He is part of the party, just like the druid's bear, the Paladin's horse, the Summoner's Eidolon, and Wizard's Imp is. I'm still waiting someone of those in the "other camp" to tell me if they give a share of the treasure to the wizard's imp too.
That said, I won't complain if he wants to charge for his heals. I'll just ask him to stay in his house, and not come to adventures with me. My groups of friends is very close, and not everybody has the right to come and say "hey, I want to be part of your group. Give me presents in my birthday". Do you admit in your group every single NPC who wants to go to adventures?
_IF_ one player wants to have some hireling, that's fine. But it is HIS choice, so it is HIS responsability. Unless he has asked the whole party first, he deserves no right to come and demand a payement. Just like the wizard can't go and say "I built winged boots to all of you. Here is the bill, pay me". As other poster has said:
A complete different issue would be if the group votes to get a hireling. Like in "we need a healer with us, let's hire one". In that case, yes, they have to pay him. Be it a cohort, or not.
|
|
But, to your point, what is the role of the cohort? If he is filling a hole in the party (healer/buffer for instance) then he is, and absolutely should be, the responsibility of the party and "thank you very much to the player that sacrificed a feat to bring him to us!"
At that point it is hopefully a party decision. Frankly, if my party desperately needed a hole filled I'd be more likely to introduce an NPC with his own motivations than go through the hassle of messing with someone taking Leadership.
Ultimately, it needs to be a party decision about how wealth is distributed. If the cohort is vital to the party and they all agreed they needed him, hopefully they help support him as well. If it was an executive decision by a single member of the party to take on a cohort because he wanted whatever advantage came with it, it is not the GM's place to come in and say that everyone now needs to pay to support the guy only one person wanted brought in.The Leadership feat itself needs to represent a fundamental relationship between exactly one character (the guy who took the feat) and the cohort. If other members become involved in this relationship, hopefully they help support it as appropriate.
One would hope this would come about organically "Gee, thanks for that well-timed buff Tiny Tim! I know you work for Gorge Hammerhands, but I'd like to show my appreciation by giving you this wand I got as part of my cut".
If that doesn't happen, the character is free to tell Tim to withhold healing as appropriate. Or Tim can even get pissed and go look for employment elsewhere, and the party gets to see how they get along without him, and maybe they treat the next guy better.
But no one should be dictating that Tim gets a piece of the party pie. That's for them to decide.
But, to your point, what is the role of the cohort? If he is filling a hole in the party (healer/buffer for instance) then he is, and absolutely should be, the responsibility of the party and "thank you very much to the player that sacrificed a feat to bring him to us!"
IF and only IF the party agrees.
If player A, who is a Rogue, takes a Bard Cohort so he can sing and cast heroism and haste and buff his low BAB, with the rest of the party being a Wizard, a Witch, a fire Oracle and a healing cleric, then I don't see why they should pay him.
Even if the rest of the party are fighters, but they don`t WANT to have a bard around, they don't have to pay either.
Once again, it's like the wizard taking Craft Woundrous items and then building everybody headbands of Intelect and telling them they have to pay for it. Well, if I did not ask for it, I'm not going to pay. Differen't thing is if he ask us *first* and we all agree we could use a cohort, and somebody has to take the feat. Then yes, thankyou very much to the guy who sacrificed a feat.
In Pathfinder, where money is credit towards improving your character, where there is a chart telling you how much money you will get per battle and where you feel you must gain gold to hardline meet a standard that is given as a very loose example or fall behind, of course you're loathe to give anything away to anyone for any reason-- give away that 1 gp and you're behind 1 gp from wealth by level for the rest of your career. Make sure to loot everything that's got a gp value. Tear down the draperie; sell it, it's worth 15gp. Let's take the couches, too, they're worth 4. Gotta meet our quota.
In every game I've ever played in, the person who runs the cohort gives him cash from his own funds. I don't see how that works in real life, but remember that Pathfinder is real life as much as a carousel is a horse race.
Which brings me back to my original point.
Leadership is something you should discuss with your DM AND your party before you even consider taking. The rules and expectations should be agreed upon and suitable to everyone.
Is it fair to place the entire burden of equipping the cohort on the leader? Sure. But, don't whine if the cohort then makes it his sole duty to make his leader as powerful and prominent as possible.
One thing nobody has mentioned.
With the feat leadership, you get not only a cohort, also a lot of followers.
If the PC with leadership brings 50 level 1 guys to the adventure, do they get they share too? Because, you know, they are also sentient beings. And full personalities, and get their share of the danger too. Would you divide the treasure by 57 (50 followers, 5 pc, 1 cohort and the wizard's imp)?
I wasn't patient enough to read through the whole thread and nearly 100 posts so if this is how someone else does it, I apologize for the redundancy.
The way I see it is that cohorts are along for the ride, they can be explained in many ways from being an intern to being someone who is just trying to gain experience as an adventurer.
As far as party splits go: they don't get any share of the money in the games I play in. They get "hand me downs" and things that other party members don't want (i.e we found a +1 rapier that the cohort could use and no one else wants or needs it, the cohort gets it or a +1 ring of protection was given to the cohort by one of the other PC's to be nice).
They aren't another PC played by another Player so they do not get any special treatment and do not deserve the same "split" that the others get, this could easily cause others in the group to start to hate the cohort and not care if it died off.
|
|
How you can't see "moo" in your answer is beyond me. I asked a simple yes or no question - if a cohort does a service for you, would you be okay with him demanding payment for it? That you wouldn't ask him to perform the service in the first place is perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't answer the question because you've ignored a word: "if."
----
Edit: I got a payer/payee backwards!
If I asked him to do something that I would pay someone else to do were I in town, it would be reasonable to expect him to ask me to pay him for it. If I get stabbed by an orc and he runs up, heals me, and then demands that I pay him, I'm going to run him through and blame it on the orc.