| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didnt read everything because there is 100 posts.
But a share of the loot is an agreement from all principal parties (ie the forming or character members) you dont get a "share" of the loot simply by being there, just like an employee at Walmart doesn't get a share of the profits.
The cohort can simply be paid on a salary. "here you are my good chap, your monthly stipend"
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.
Really? Ummm... when you're unconscious and bleeding out on the ground... "Well, he didn't ask me to heal him... we never negotiated a price..." is a legitimate excuse to leave you to die?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cohort is not a member of the party in the same sense that the PC's are. He is a follower/buddy/etc of a particular party member. That is why it is up to that party member to take care of him. He no more deserves a share of party treasure than an Eidolon, familiar, or animal companion.
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.
Um, that is how it works. Only the leader pays a share.
Cohorts don't even steal EXP (they don't count for dividing it) they gain a small portion of everyone else gained.
As a DM I L-O-V-E cohorts.
Bring them along but plan on determining shares of treasure yourself. I'm not likely to adjust anything treasure wise and very likely to adjust things challenge wise. Usually to the extent that I can demonstracte some new monster or gizmo trap that I have dreamed up that just wouldn't work well without a cohort there to be eaten or pulverized in some particularly nasty way so a player can wipe his brow and say "It is so fortunate that my character wasn't standing right there when that happened."
Now you can spend that disputed cohort share on raising them from the dead (and the cohort really owes you a debt of graditude and will work longer and harder for free!)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game I am currently playing in I took leadership and have a cohort. The cohort is a sorcerer, and I took her because the group had no arcane caster. There has been more then one ocasion where she has saved the party because they do something stupid. She is also a Magic item crafter, and no sooner did the party find out she could do that then the requests started to pile up.
As far as group wealth she always takes a cut of my divide of money. However when we come across a wand, scroll, staff or any other obvious "caster" item goes to her. For granted one particular player in the group (The Paladin) wants all the treasure we find to be sold off so he can raise the money to buy his gear, so that usually requires a bit of convincing on my part to not have to sell it. I created a back story for the Cohort, and she has her own quirks, agenda, and wants. She does theings for the group and therefor she gets rewarded with items accordingly.
However a couple levels later the same player (the Paladin) decided to take leadership and had his own cohort. This cohort is nothing more then an extension of his character. Does nothing but heal/buff/craft for his character. His cohort gets no specail treatement, gets magic items if no one wants them and actually takes no money because he has dedicated his life to the Paladin.
When running games I have no problem with the Leadership feat. I had one game where we lost 2 of the 5 players due to them moving away (they were a married couple) and as opposed to bringing in new people mid-AP I just gave each of the 3 remaining the leadership feat for free. As the remaining party was a Sorcerer, Bard and Witch. But in each instance I made the Cohort. They way I see it, you really have no control over what sort of person you attract, you can hope for a particular class, but does not mean you will get it. If you don't wnat the help you can send them away, but what if no one else comes along.
Anyway in regards to the OP's post.
If someone has a cohort then it is their responsibility to keep that cohort happy, not the rest of the party. If the cohort is going to do things for the rest of the party then the cohort should be compensated. If they are helping then if a particular item comes up that the cohort can use, let them have it. You cant tell me that there is that big of a difference between selling 8 +1 ring of protections and selling 7 of them. If another player is that greedy, well then that is something all together different.
The WPL in my mind is not really accurate. If all the treasure you come across is being sold so you can buy things for your character then you will always be about half of where you should be. However if you keep all the items you come across and can't use them, then what good does that do you. It is not a perfect system, but merely a guide that you should try to be close to. If it does not work, it does not work. If it does for you, then more power to you.
As long as everyone is having fun then it should not matter what gear everyone has, or what you give the cohort.
I'm of the opinion if a player wants to play 2 PC's and get equal shares out for both of the PC's then that's fine as long as the GM allows for them to play 2 PC's (say for a party of 2-3 and needing another PC to be in the game), but just saying that they are getting a cohort with leadership and then demanding equal split/pay is just asinine to me. That cohort isn't doing anything else for the other members of the party other than taking a chunk out of their loot and giving the PC w/ the cohort an unequal amount and raising the APL of the fights, which wouldn't normally be there w/o that cohort.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 2 people 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?
In most groups I've been in, we don't take NPC spellcasters adventuring unless they are allies which share a common goal. They might get a share for a small area but never a permanent share. I don't think I've ever had a group that has paid for an spellcaster to come adventuring with them.
The only time we pay for NPC spellcasters is when we are in-town licking our wounds and need restoration or other services. If that's how a player wants his cohort treated, I'm fine with that.
Design Manager
|
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.Really? Ummm... when you're unconscious and bleeding out on the ground... "Well, he didn't ask me to heal him... we never negotiated a price..." is a legitimate excuse to leave you to die?
If he's that kind of jerk, I probably don't want him around anyways. Like I said in previous posts, giving him something out of the goodness of my heart, or as a thank you for something helpful he did is one thing. Providing a service I didn't ask for and then demanding payment is another.
Similarly, just because I happened to receive the benefit of your bard cohort's bard song while he was buffing you nearby does not mean I'm now obligated to pay out of my share for your class feature.
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.Really? Ummm... when you're unconscious and bleeding out on the ground... "Well, he didn't ask me to heal him... we never negotiated a price..." is a legitimate excuse to leave you to die?If he's that kind of jerk, I probably don't want him around anyways. Like I said in previous posts, giving him something out of the goodness of my heart, or as a thank you for something helpful he did is one thing. Providing a service I didn't ask for and then demanding payment is another.
Similarly, just because I happened to receive the benefit of your bard cohort's bard song while he was buffing you nearby does not mean I'm now obligated to pay out of my share for your class feature.
In that case, you should be left out of the singing all together. You, I'm sure, would be cool with that and then I would agree that you owe that cohort nothing.
If the cohort starts singing and including you, I expect you to actively yell at him to leave you out of it.
|
Design Manager
|
In that case, you should be left out of the singing all together. You, I'm sure, would be cool with that and then I would agree that you owe that cohort nothing.
If the cohort starts singing and including you, I expect you to actively yell at him to leave you out of it.
I think once I yell "You're no friend of mine!" and establish that I'm not an ally, we should be good to go :)
|
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!"
Well I have and it happens a lot in various scenarios.
It's called "he's your son when he's bad" and " he's our son when he does good".
You don't mind that cohort when he's healing, buffing, or even crafting for your ass but the moment he wants a stake in the treasure he's the leader's responsibility.
|
|
The cohort is not a member of the party in the same sense that the PC's are. He is a follower/buddy/etc of a particular party member. That is why it is up to that party member to take care of him. He no more deserves a share of party treasure than an Eidolon, familiar, or animal companion.
Mind showing where this is written?
The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate
for its level (see Chapter 14).
A cohort does not count as a party member when
determining the party’s XP.
Hmmmm, says absolutely nothing about treasure. It also says that he should be equipped with appropriate gear for his level so this gear has to come from some where.
|
|
I'm of the opinion if a player wants to play 2 PC's and get equal shares out for both of the PC's then that's fine as long as the GM allows for them to play 2 PC's (say for a party of 2-3 and needing another PC to be in the game), but just saying that they are getting a cohort with leadership and then demanding equal split/pay is just asinine to me. That cohort isn't doing anything else for the other members of the party other than taking a chunk out of their loot and giving the PC w/ the cohort an unequal amount and raising the APL of the fights, which wouldn't normally be there w/o that cohort.
Really?
Remind me again why you are going to bother having a cohort if it just stands there and does nothing while in combat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, just to be clear:Is that about the size of it?
- For purposes of determining whether the cohort gets any share of the loot, he is an appendage of the person who took leadership.
- For purposes of roleplay, he is not - or at least, you're totally okay with insisting that your close friends leave their appendages at home because their appendages treat you as would any other NPC.
Exactly. Just like a Knight and his squire, or a Noble and his Majordomo. For the purpose of treasure, he is a hireling, so he get paid by his liege.
And for the purpose of going to adventures, I only go with adventurers. Guys that are there just to eat iron rations, be in the middle when the wizard want to cast a fireball, and begging for rescue, without giving us anything else, should get at home. My character has a wife and two daughters, one of them a baby, and a half blind parrot, and they don't come to the adventure either.
So yes, your Alfred can come with you, Batman. But he is not going to get a share of the treasure, beyond the wage you pay him. And if he is not going to contribute but is going to leech healing, getting buffs, and needing help, then it's much better if Alfred is left in the Bat-cave and helps you with something other than his adventuring prowess.
Just like the wizard can't go and say "I built winged boots to all of you. Here is the bill, pay me".Indeed, but not really what I had in mind. What I had in mind was whether you pay the cohort NPC rates for services you request, not for services he provides and you don't request. Indeed, under the "the cohort gets nothing" school of thought, I would assume the cohort provides no services whatsoever that aren't actually requested, unless directed by the leader.
I find it fair. He doesn't "have" to buff me with his spells or whatever. He can do, if he want, but I'm not forced to pay him for it. I'll do, if I want. And if he choose to never help anyone, ever, then he can certainly expect never being healed by the party, or buffed, or anyone move to flank with him or take out the big tiger that has him grabbed and is chewing his forearm.
Back to the squire example: he doesn't have to feed my horse, help me don my armor, or bear my shield. OF COURSE NOT. He is the squire of the knight, not the slave of my barbarian. IF he choose to be helpful and friendly, and we find a nice scrambled egg breakfast in the morning when we wake up, surely he will make fast friends with my barbarian. Just like any other NPC, be it a Cohort, or a DM NPC. And if we're friends, I'll endanger myself to rescue him, I'll give him my +1 battle axe when I find a +2 (even if I could sell it for gold), and I'll be helpful for him.
It's just that he doesn't get any right just because some player took "Leadership" instead of "skill focus diplomacy". He is a squire, or some other hireling. And thus, he doesn't get a full share of the treasure.
Really?
Remind me again why you are going to bother having a cohort if it just stands there and does nothing while in combat?
Roleplaying. Just for the same reason one of the players in my game just took Skill Focus in Profesion (lawyer).
A cavalier with a squire is cool, a wizard with apprentice is cool, and a noble with a loyal servant is cool (like Batman-Alfred).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion if a player wants to play 2 PC's and get equal shares out for both of the PC's then that's fine as long as the GM allows for them to play 2 PC's (say for a party of 2-3 and needing another PC to be in the game), but just saying that they are getting a cohort with leadership and then demanding equal split/pay is just asinine to me. That cohort isn't doing anything else for the other members of the party other than taking a chunk out of their loot and giving the PC w/ the cohort an unequal amount and raising the APL of the fights, which wouldn't normally be there w/o that cohort.Really?
Remind me again why you are going to bother having a cohort if it just stands there and does nothing while in combat?
The cohort shouldn't be there to get a big piece of the prize, it's basically a NPC that is 2 levels below your main PC for a feat. People complain all the time that Leadership is OP, it can be even more so if that cohort is getting an equal share of the spoils. The other PC's didn't ASK you to take that feat, that was picked by you. So it is up to the person who picked the feat and gained the cohort to provide for them. Think of them as like a squire to your knight, the knight provides for the squire, but he doesn't ask his friends to provide for him.
They are in YOUR service, not the party's. Now if that cohort has feats that can help the party by crafting goods, sure allow them to put in requests and pay for them, but providing a role in the party in times of combat and saying some kind of nonsense that if the cohort was a cleric the other party members should pay for the healing services is asinine. That cohort is alive because the party wizard did a hold person on that orc that was sneaking up behind that cohort and would have killed him. That kind of combat stuff works itself out and would have if the cohort wasn't there to begin with.
The cohort is not a member of the party in the same sense that the PC's are. He is a follower/buddy/etc of a particular party member. That is why it is up to that party member to take care of him. He no more deserves a share of party treasure than an Eidolon, familiar, or animal companion.Mind showing where this is written?
I'll do, if you show me where does it say that the Familiar Imp does not get a share of the treasure.
Hmmmm, says absolutely nothing about treasure. It also says that he should be equipped with appropriate gear for his level so this gear has to come from some where.
When it arrives. It doesn't say that the Party have to pay for it's starting gear.
And as someone said above, a NPC with -2 levels get like 3% of the total treasure of a party of 5. If you are going to use those guidelines, I don't really care that my character gives up 6 silver coins every 100 gold pieces we find. But getting a full share (or half share), that's a whole different matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the cohort starts singing and including you, I expect you to actively yell at him to leave you out of it.
No, I'll yell the bard's liege to leave him at home. Just like I do with my wife, my two babies and my blind parrot.
Adventures are for adventurers. And that guy obviously isn't one, because he is unable to catch up us in level,and doesn't get a share of the XP. LEave him at home, and make him to have the house clean when you go back from adventuring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He isn't a class feature, he's a feat.
The cohort deserves the same pay our Druids Large Cat companion does, possibly less, because the average 10th level Druid large cat would destroy your follower, so which would actually represent better value for money investment from the party?
Exactly. Just like a Knight and his squire, or a Noble and his Majordomo. For the purpose of treasure, he is a hireling, so he get paid by his liege.
And for the purpose of going to adventures, I only go with adventurers. Guys that are there just to eat iron rations, be in the middle when the wizard want to cast a fireball, and begging for rescue, without giving us anything else, should get at home. My character has a wife and two daughters, one of them a baby, and a half blind parrot, and they don't come to the adventure either.
What gives you the right to insist that your fellow PCs don't get access to their class features? Is it okay for me to say that I'm not cool with your power attack, so don't use it? What makes the cohort different? You can't have it both ways - either he's a class feature, and in all cases should be treated as one, or he's a person, and in all cases should be treated as one. To do otherwise is blatant hypocrisy.
If your power attack gives ME a penalty to hit to give YOU a bonus to damage, I'll tell you please not to take it, yes.
And your squire _IS_ a person. It's just not a full share member of the adventurer party. There are a ton of person who doesn't get a share of the loot. The sailors who are in the ship, or the driver of the carriage for example. Your squire happen to be one of those that doesn't get full share of the treasure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are getting off track here a bit, this is a cohort gained through the use of a feat by 1 player, not by the other members of the party. The other members of the party aren't responsible for the cohort and what he/she makes for profit or finds in treasure.
Think of it this way: The PC who gained the Leadership feat took on the Cohort as their responsibility. This includes feeding them, clothing them, providing them with gear to adventure in, and providing them with magical items.
Any argument that states: A cohort has joined the party and now it is the party's responsibility as a whole to provide for said cohort's needs including food, drink, transportation, arms, armor, lodging, and various magical items is dead wrong.
This is basically like being a parent, and you bring along your kid to an amusement park with a bunch of other friends who DO NOT have kids, then you expect all of them to dig into their own pockets to provide for your kid's entrance fee, rides, toys, food, and drink. Is that fair? No! Not to anyone in the least bit.
So you are going to probably argue back with me that this isn't a kid in RL, but the example still stands. The other party members did not invite this cohort to join them and providing for that cohort is not part of the deal for them. That is your responsibility as the one who purchased that person's services or allowed them to join you. It it up to you to figure out how much of a stipend to give to them and how to share YOUR wealth with them, not the rest of the party. Period. End of story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cohort is not a member of the party in the same sense that the PC's are. He is a follower/buddy/etc of a particular party member. That is why it is up to that party member to take care of him. He no more deserves a share of party treasure than an Eidolon, familiar, or animal companion.Mind showing where this is written?
The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate
for its level (see Chapter 14).A cohort does not count as a party member when
determining the party’s XP.Hmmmm, says absolutely nothing about treasure. It also says that he should be equipped with appropriate gear for his level so this gear has to come from some where.
The cohort should be equipped with appropriate NPC level gear. I never said otherwise, but it should not come out of the treasure allocated for the PC's. The GM can put in additional treasure to account for that, but the NPC's gear is not equal to a split of what the PC's get, and I think that is what the OP was asking.
By my math, and by the book, a PC's share of the wealth would give him a lot more than an NPC should have. So I stand by my statement. He does not deserve a share of the party's treasure. OOC the GM can put in extra gear for him, and IC it can fluffed to be his pay for being a less than full member of the party.
|
Design Manager
|
If your power attack gives ME a penalty to hit to give YOU a bonus to damage, I'll tell you please not to take it, yes.How does my cohort not helping you logically equate to my cohort harming you? The fallacy of the excluded middle is hovering in the wings.
Your cohort taking my money out of my pocket is you taking a feat that is causing quantifiable harm to me. That's the point he's making. Maybe it would have been better if he'd said "If your power attack takes money out of my pocket to give YOU a bonus to damage, I'll tell you please not to take it, yes".
Cool, so now we are splitting off shares for the Druids Cat, the Summoners Flying Monkey, the Wizards Imp, the Cavaliers Camel...
It's going to be a full time job of adventuring just to pay them all :p
When I am GM and the party has a cohort (or cohorts) I simply leave it up to the party to decide if they "pay" the cohort or not.
If they do, they'll probably find a bit more treasure to make up for it.
Not for certain, but there's a good chance they will.
If they don't, the cohort will likely eventually start asking his leader some awkward questions.
That's about the extent of my participation in cohort treasure.
|
Design Manager
|
Cool, so now we are splitting off shares for the Druids Cat, the Summoners Flying Monkey, the Wizards Imp, the Cavaliers Camel...
It's going to be a full time job of adventuring just to pay them all :p
On the flip side, my new Panda animal companion is going to be pimped out in Celestial chain barding now that we're both pulling a cut. And I'm thinking about grabbing a couple of levels of wizard so I can get a Raven to do the scouting and pull an extra share for us as well.
Hypothetically speaking if the cat wanted a cut why wouldn't it get one if it deserved one?
If the party is getting killed by a dragon, and the wizard's imp walks up to the dragon and convinces it to stop attacking, then for some reason wants a cut of later loot, why wouldn't it get one? The imp just saved the party's life and should get whatever it asks for. Especially since it's not really a "member of the party" like the wizard is.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
The cohort is there because he is a loyal follower of one PC. The other PCs did not invite him into the group thus the cohort's share of the treasure is the burden of the PC who took the feat.
If we start paying companions, cohorts, familiars etc, then I want to insist that we be able to conduct full performance appraisals at the end of every dungeon.
"Geez Cujo, you didn't quite make quota pulling the legs off kobolds this week, sorry buddy, nothing I can do, 50% is all you're getting... yeah I know, talk to your union"
Your cohort taking my money out of my pocket is you taking a feat that is causing quantifiable harm to me. That's the point he's making. Maybe it would have been better if he'd said "If your power attack takes money out of my pocket to give YOU a bonus to damage, I'll tell you please not to take it, yes".Your reading comprehension appears to be failing you (or possibly mine is failing me, or gustavo's is failing him).
For the purpose of treasure, he is a hireling, so he get paid by his liege.
<snip>
But he is not going to get a share of the treasure, beyond the wage you pay him.
This position is perfectly fair, and it is crystal clear that the "harm" you have proposed is not happening.
So we've established that the cohort gets no money. We've also established that gustavo does not expect the cohort to help his character:
We also see pretty clearly that gustavo feels that if the cohort isn't helping him as well as the leader, the cohort should stay home and the person who took leadership should be denied the mechanical advantages of his feat, because the cohort has harmed him in some as yet unquantified way. Taking money out of his pocket is self-evidently not that way.That said, I won't complain if he wants to charge for his heals.
<snip>
He doesn't have to feed my horse, help me don my armor, or bear my shield.
If that is the case, then if he has the Weapon Focus Feat, perhaps he should leave his weapon at home too.
Because he is a employee not a partner. This is the same thing as the mercenary Capitan taking the largest share of the loot. How much loot do you think the common soldier gets in a mercenary army? Not a whole lot. I think they got somewhere around 1% divided up among the entire army. The Captain and officers get the majority of the loot. The ordinarily soldier is way more at risk than the Captain but gets paid almost nothing.
Because he is a employee not a partner. This is the same thing as the mercenary Capitan taking the largest share of the loot. How much loot do you think the common soldier gets in a mercenary army? Not a whole lot. I think they got somewhere around 1% divided up among the entire army. The Captain and officers get the majority of the loot. The ordinarily soldier is way more at risk than the Captain but gets paid almost nothing.
In mercenary armies during Medieval Age, after a victory, the captain usually gave his soldiers some time to loot the city or lands captured. Each soldier could get as much loot as they want, they just had to find it.
A better analogy would be pirates from the Caribbean : when a captain wanted to gather a crew for his ship, he had to establish by contract what should be the share of each crew, based on the skills of each man : standard sailor get 1 share, carpenter get 1.5 share, doctor and first officer get double share, captain and boat's owner get triple share, etc ...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its important to remember, the cohort doesn't have a giant 'I am a NPC!' sign floating over his head.
He's just another guy who showed up to help the party. Most of the time though the best place for a cohort is somewhere besides the front line, as 1.) They're fragile and 2.) Cause arguments like this.
Whether they get paid is really a decision of the players based on their alignment and the way the cohort gets portrayed in the first place. My general argument is that the DM decides who the cohort is, and how they're built, the player just makes a request.
Like: I'm looking for a crafter.
or
I want a hot elf babe.
And then a gnomish crafter shows up, and he gets a high level expert infant half-fire elemental elf who needs to be changed occassionally.
Frankly, most of the against paying arguments I've heard though sound like junk from KODT. Its not real money, and your money really only matters insofar as making sure you have what you need to progress. The fact you can't get the specific magic item you think will make your build be unstoppable is a feature, not a bug.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its important to remember, the cohort doesn't have a giant 'I am a NPC!' sign floating over his head.
He's just another guy who showed up to help the party. Most of the time though the best place for a cohort is somewhere besides the front line, as 1.) They're fragile and 2.) Cause arguments like this.
Sure the cohort doesn't have a physical sign floating over his head, but neither do PC's have signs floating over their heads proclaiming "I'm a PC." That's just a silly argument to me.
I have to disagree with you about the guy showing up to help the party. The cohort is in fact a member of the party invited by 1 PC and his primary responsibility is to help the guy or gal who hired him on or who he decided to follow. That is the PC who took the leadership feat and asked the GM to give them a cohort.
Whether they get paid is really a decision of the players based on their alignment and the way the cohort gets portrayed in the first place. My general argument is that the DM decides who the cohort is, and how they're built, the player just makes a request.
Like: I'm looking for a crafter.
or
I want a hot elf babe.And then a gnomish crafter shows up, and he gets a high level expert infant half-fire elemental elf who needs to be changed occassionally.
Frankly, most of the against paying arguments I've heard though sound like junk from KODT. Its not real money, and your money really only matters insofar as making sure you have what you need to progress. The fact you can't get the specific magic item you think will make your build be unstoppable is a feature, not a bug.
This new NPC is the sole responsibility of the person who took the feat and asked the GM to give them a friend/follower/etc. The GM role plays this character most of the time and the Player with the PC who has the leadership feat rolls for them and controls their other actions.
The problem arises when someone thinks that a lower level cohort following the PC with the feat deserves a full share of the party's loot/treasure/money. This is a hired gun of that ONE PC and anything that is found by the party (even with the cohort's help) should be taken solely from that PC's share who hired the cohort. This can be done in the form of a contract via the PC w/ the leadership feat and the new cohort when they come aboard. It does not fall on the rest of the party who didn't ask for this cohort to join them to help support the new NPC, unless they did in fact ask the other PC to recruit someone else to join them. Any additional gear/treasure/loot that the GM wants the cohort to have is solely at the discretion of that GM.
I'm really surprised at how anyone can say that a cohort "deserves" or is "entitled" to an equal split with the rest of the party. This is NOT a normal PC.
Its important to remember, the cohort doesn't have a giant 'I am a NPC!' sign floating over his head.
He's just another guy who showed up to help the party. Most of the time though the best place for a cohort is somewhere besides the front line, as 1.) They're fragile and 2.) Cause arguments like this.
Sure the cohort doesn't have a physical sign floating over his head, but neither do PC's have signs floating over their heads proclaiming "I'm a PC." That's just a silly argument to me.
I have to disagree with you about the guy showing up to help the party. The cohort is in fact a member of the party invited by 1 PC and his primary responsibility is to help the guy or gal who hired him on or who he decided to follow. That is the PC who took the leadership feat and asked the GM to give them a cohort.
Whether they get paid is really a decision of the players based on their alignment and the way the cohort gets portrayed in the first place. My general argument is that the DM decides who the cohort is, and how they're built, the player just makes a request.
Like: I'm looking for a crafter.
or
I want a hot elf babe.And then a gnomish crafter shows up, and he gets a high level expert infant half-fire elemental elf who needs to be changed occassionally.
Frankly, most of the against paying arguments I've heard though sound like junk from KODT. Its not real money, and your money really only matters insofar as making sure you have what you need to progress. The fact you can't get the specific magic item you think will make your build be unstoppable is a feature, not a bug.
This new NPC is the sole responsibility of the person who took the feat and asked the GM to give them a friend/follower/etc. The GM role plays this character most of the time and the Player with the PC who has the leadership feat rolls for them and controls their other actions.
The problem arises when someone thinks that a lower level cohort following the PC with...
Assuming the rest of the party is level 12 fighters, what is the difference between a level 10 wizard cohort, whom crafts blasts and buffs enemies/ the ENTIRE party as needed, and a player who is new to the group and two levels lower (10) who does the exact same thing?
If one party member is the one who finds this new PC while they're at a pub and invite them into the group is that player character "hired by that 1 guy"? Technically, yes. Bet he'll get a full cut though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming the rest of the party is level 12 fighters, what is the difference between a level 10 wizard cohort, whom crafts blasts and buffs enemies/ the ENTIRE party as needed, and a player who is new to the group and two levels lower (10) who does the exact same thing?
If one party member is the one who finds this new PC while they're at a pub and invite them into the group is that player character "hired by that 1 guy"? Technically, yes. Bet he'll get a full cut though.
The difference is the guy they invite to join them at the club is a peer, the cohort is a follower. You have to keep in mind that the cohort isn't there as a peer, he's there as one of the peer's entourage.
Think of it this way. Most movies starring a big expensive star will assign him an assistant who gets paid as part of the movie's production and helps make sure his time working on the movie is unencumbered by distractions. Chances are, he has members of an entourage who also help with those duties as well. But the members of the entourage don't get paid by the movie production - they're there because they're the big expensive star's people. They ultimately report to him, not the movie's producers. He's the one who sees to their financial remuneration, not the movie's producers. Well, that's the cohort's place in an adventuring party - the leadership PC's entourage.
Assuming the rest of the party is level 12 fighters, what is the difference between a level 10 wizard cohort, whom crafts blasts and buffs enemies/ the ENTIRE party as needed, and a player who is new to the group and two levels lower (10) who does the exact same thing?
If one party member is the one who finds this new PC while they're at a pub and invite them into the group is that player character "hired by that 1 guy"? Technically, yes. Bet he'll get a full cut though.
The difference is that this is a cohort hired by a specific fighter in the group and the leadership feat should be thought of in terms of as a contract between the PC w/ the leadership feat and the cohort. Thus, the responsibility for pay, gear, food, drink, lodging, et cetera is part of the terms of the deal between those two people only. This is NOT another PC and shouldn't even be thought of in those terms. If another PC joins in the APL is adjusted accordingly, the XP is adjusted accordingly, and the wealth is adjusted accordingly by the GM.
If that cohort is a level 10 wizard with feats to create weapons/arms/armor, then the other party members can see if that person would be willing to craft said items for a price (whatever the PC w/ the cohort and GM decide is fair). Or they could just say no and make those PC's buy their items at the normal market place, only crafting for their leader.
If all the Players decide that one of them should get that wizard cohort and one of them takes the leadership feat with an agreement that all of them will equally be responsible for helping with that cohort's cost of living, then sure go ahead and decide if you want to give him an equal share as per a normal PC. That is up to the group in that case.
Any arguments that have to do with in-combat stuff I will just ignore. Buffing/healing/etc. That stuff is all equal in the end because each PC/NPC will fight to survive and that includes all the healing/buffing/debuffing that happens in a fight. It's in everyone's best interest to work together to defeat their enemies using whatever means they have at their disposal. This should never ever ever be factored into the "price" of anything.
Assuming the rest of the party is level 12 fighters, what is the difference between a level 10 wizard cohort, whom crafts blasts and buffs enemies/ the ENTIRE party as needed, and a player who is new to the group and two levels lower (10) who does the exact same thing?
If one party member is the one who finds this new PC while they're at a pub and invite them into the group is that player character "hired by that 1 guy"? Technically, yes. Bet he'll get a full cut though.
I don't think it would matter than much where the cohort's funds come from. At level 12, each PC should have around 110,000 gp worth of stuff. The level 10 cohort (which is a heroic NPC) would have around 13,000 gp worth of stuff. That's just barely over 10% of one PCs funds. Or, for a party of 4 PCs, that's just under 3% per character. So either the leadership PC would have approximately 100,000 to work with instead of 110,000, or the entire party would each have 107,000 each.
Assuming the rest of the party is level 12 fighters, what is the difference between a level 10 wizard cohort, whom crafts blasts and buffs enemies/ the ENTIRE party as needed, and a player who is new to the group and two levels lower (10) who does the exact same thing?
If one party member is the one who finds this new PC while they're at a pub and invite them into the group is that player character "hired by that 1 guy"? Technically, yes. Bet he'll get a full cut though.
The difference is the guy they invite to join them at the club is a peer, the cohort is a follower. You have to keep in mind that the cohort isn't there as a peer, he's there as one of the peer's entourage.
Think of it this way. Most movies starring a big expensive star will assign him an assistant who gets paid as part of the movie's production and helps make sure his time working on the movie is unencumbered by distractions. Chances are, he has members of an entourage who also help with those duties as well. But the members of the entourage don't get paid by the movie production - they're there because they're the big expensive star's people. They ultimately report to him, not the movie's producers. He's the one who sees to their financial remuneration, not the movie's producers. Well, that's the cohort's place in an adventuring party - the leadership PC's entourage.
Another master-servant relationship.
Another master-servant relationship.
It's pretty much always some form of superior-subordinate position because the cohort follows a leader rather than follows his own lead. It doesn't have to be master-servant, though that would be a common leader-cohort relationship. Hell, the cohort could just be a childhood best friend or crony who just happens to follow his more interesting buddy's life rather than live his own. But the fact remains, he isn't in the adventuring for a share of the treasure, he's there to follow his leader. Full stop. Equipping him in PF may be a matter of practical significance and may convince the other PCs to be magnanimous, but they aren't obligated to do so.