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.
Another master-servant relationship.
And didn't you specifically say and agree that people don't walk around with "PC/NPC" above their heads?
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.
If this buffer's good at his job, is it not also in everyone's best that he stay alive, meaning well equipped?
If a person only "works for" one guy, and only gets paid by one guy, then why wouldn't he buff only one guy?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Amusingly this seems the opposite of the Crafting feats.
The character with the feat burns a resource (a feat) to gain a benefit (cohort/followers). Part of that feat requires an investment to maintain the maximum benefit (akin to how you're going to spend gold to upgrade your falchion if you have Weapon Focus: Falchion) If you don't, then the feat will suffer (dead cohorts, lower leadership score). This is the same as taking weapon focus Falchion and using a shortsword.
Why this seems to be the opposite of the Crafting argument is, according to the FAQ, the Crafting feat should only benefit the crafter, not his party. i.e. If Wally Wizard has Craft Wondrous Item, and makes cloaks of resistance+2 for everyone, for them, the item should count towards the feat owner's level as 2000 GP of items, but for everyone else it should count at 4K GP. There's much wailing and gnashing of teeth that only the feat owner benefits from the feat and he should be required to craft for his friends as part of the team. With the hiring, even though again everyone can benefit from the feat, the feat owner should be the only one to pay for the benefits.
Personally, I look at it as a balancing factor in having the cohort being 'paid for' by the character. I think everyone will conceed that Leadership is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, feat in the game. One of the balancing factors* is that basically you're reducing your WBL for this feat, because you're sharing your (personal) WBL across two characters.
Your Animal Companion/Mount/Familiar dies, you're out for a couple days, then 200 GP you get the exact same critter back** so the incentive to protect the critter isn't as high as the guy who has a cohort. He *can't* get full investment of his feat back if he dies.
Now can party members *choose* to equip the hireling? OF course. But such things are purely RP decisions only.
Now as to 'why wouldn't he get a full share?' same reason the familiar/talking sword/Boon companion doesn't. Basically the core assumption is "You brought Gabrielle along, you take care of her."
*
**
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.
Another master-servant relationship.
You're adding things into the feat that aren't there. The cohort is a companion who's 2 levels behind the leader. That's all.
"Less interesting". Where does it say the cohort can't be as or even MORE interesting?
"isn't in the adventuring for a share of the treasure". Where does it say he doesn't care about money?
2 levels lower doesn't even have to mean "weaker".
I'm not saying the party MUST give the cohort a full share. The party doesn't even have to give EACH OTHER full share. This idea though that the cohort is 2nd rate by default is false. Unless of course you believe he has "NPC" floating above his head.
Amusingly this seems the opposite of the Crafting feats.
The character with the feat burns a resource (a feat) to gain a benefit (cohort/followers). Part of that feat requires an investment to maintain the maximum benefit (akin to how you're going to spend gold to upgrade your falchion if you have Weapon Focus: Falchion) If you don't, then the feat will suffer (dead cohorts, lower leadership score). This is the same as taking weapon focus Falchion and using a shortsword.
Why this seems to be the opposite of the Crafting argument is, according to the FAQ, the Crafting feat should only benefit the crafter, not his party. i.e. If Wally Wizard has Craft Wondrous Item, and makes cloaks of resistance+2 for everyone, for them, the item should count towards the feat owner's level as 2000 GP of items, but for everyone else it should count at 4K GP. There's much wailing and gnashing of teeth that only the feat owner benefits from the feat and he should be required to craft for his friends as part of the team. With the hiring, even though again everyone can benefit from the feat, the feat owner should be the only one to pay for the benefits.
Personally, I look at it as a balancing factor in having the cohort being 'paid for' by the character. I think everyone will conceed that Leadership is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, feat in the game. One of the balancing factors* is that basically you're reducing your WBL for this feat, because you're sharing your (personal) WBL across two characters.
Your Animal Companion/Mount/Familiar dies, you're out for a couple days, then 200 GP you get the exact same critter back** so the incentive to protect the critter isn't as high as the guy who has a cohort. He *can't* get full investment of his feat back if he dies.
Now can party members *choose* to equip the hireling? OF course. But such things are purely RP decisions only.
Now as to 'why wouldn't he get a...
There are 2 factors at work here. Mechancal and roleplaying.
Roleplaying wise, the Druids AC wolf doesn't want a cut, so it doesn't get one. If it did want one somehow, the characters would discuss it.
Mechanically, you spending a feat so that I get free Haste, Heal, or half price items, is a lot more useful to me than you getting +1 to your attack rolls with 1 weapon.
Since this feat has the potential to dwindle down into uselessness for you, and it was so useful for me, I should probably help make sure the feat stays beneficial to us both instead of being a net gain of 0 to me and an actual loss for you.
You're adding things into the feat that aren't there. The cohort is a companion who's 2 levels behind the leader. That's all."Less interesting". Where does it say the cohort can't be as or even MORE interesting?
"isn't in the adventuring for a share of the treasure". Where does it say he doesn't care about money?
2 levels lower doesn't even have to mean "weaker".
I'm not saying the party MUST give the cohort a full share. The party doesn't even have to give EACH OTHER full share. This idea though that the cohort is 2nd rate by default is false. Unless of course you believe he has "NPC" floating above his head.
You've really got to stop taking specific cases and how they could operate (like the drinking buddy or crony who follows his more interesting buddy around) as some all-encompassing argument. Your counterpoints will come across less nitpicky and argumentative.
I'm going to work with the idea that names for things mean something. Leadership feat - the person who takes it is the leader of that little pairing. That implies the cohort follows rather than lives his own life or seeks his own destiny. He must think that leader is something special - exactly what the nature of that specialness really is is only interesting to the specific case.
He also serves without any requirement of being paid. There's nothing in the feat that says the cohort has to be paid at all. There's merely an incentive for the leader to be generous. So if that cohort cares about money, he certainly doesn't think it has any bearing on him following his leader into deadly peril. That's why he clearly isn't into adventuring for the money. He's into it to be around his leader.
Another master-servant relationship.
And didn't you specifically say and agree that people don't walk around with "PC/NPC" above their heads?
This is not master-servant relationship. This is employer-employee relationship. The PC w/ the leadership feat is the EMPLOYER and the cohort is the EMPLOYEE. This can easily be thought of as an employment contract between two individuals meaning the PC/Cohort. Easy to understand there right? This isn't a contract between the PARTY and the cohort.
How is this a sign thing? I fail to understand that. This is an employment thing and if we go meta-game, then both actually have sheets of paper where one is a PC and the other is on the PC's sheet or on a separate sheet stating it's a cohort of said PC and thus an NPC when in social situations to be played out by most tables by the GM.
If this buffer's good at his job, is it not also in everyone's best that he stay alive, meaning well equipped?
If a person only "works for" one guy, and only gets paid by one guy, then why wouldn't he buff only one guy?
Of course it is, but it's not the party's responsibility to equip the cohort. If they want to out of the goodness of their hearts and to be more survivable, then that is up to the other members of the party. They are NOT required to provide any type of monetary or equipment to the cohort. It is still up to the contract terms between the PC w/ leadership and the cohort to find out what that cohort's pay is.
The second part I think is the silliest part of this whole argument. What stops the party cleric from healing the other PC's but not the cohort? Answer: It's in the best interest of the party as a whole to all heal each other, buff each other, debuff enemies, and protect each other without any sort of compensation. The compensation comes at the end when they find that treasure/loot off their enemies. Then the cohort gets his pay from his employer/leader. If the rest of the party wants to give more (if agreed upon beforehand) or toss a few trinkets the cohort's way, that's just the cherry on top for the cohort and he shouldn't expect anything other than what he has agreed upon with his employer to be paid. Anything else is a bonus.
How about this one: the party is sharing the loot equally, despite the players distributing equal GP out to everyone's primary characters. The players are tracking GP values, but the characters are tracking "I got paid same as everyone". This really does require a certain frame of mind, and needs the concept of gear value to be similarly abstracted away, but it absolutely makes sense to me. Mechanically, the cohort has a lower effective value of all their items and coinage, but in-game, they are the same as everyone else.
Other approaches to thinking this out: think "1984" by Orwell in that 2 + 2 = 5, and we were always at war with Eastasia. Reality is distorted around the cohort. PC dies and the player wants to switch to the cohort? Have the player rebuild the cohort as a PC, as if making a new one from scratch, just with the same theme (so same feats, etc, but different point buy, and overall better gear). If this happens, the cohort is the same as he or she has always been, but mechanically this is represented differently.
Edit: I skipped large sections of the thread, apologies if this treads old ground (I generally read threads fully, but I'm not in a proper read-all state ATM, no disrespect intended)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
There are 2 factors at work here. Mechancal and roleplaying.
Roleplaying wise, the Druids AC wolf doesn't want a cut, so it doesn't get one. If it did want one somehow, the characters would discuss it.
Mechanically, you spending a feat so that I get free Haste, Heal, or half price items, is a lot more useful to me than you getting +1 to your attack rolls with 1 weapon.
Since this feat has the potential to dwindle down into uselessness for you, and it was so useful for me, I should probably help make sure the feat stays beneficial to us both instead of being a net gain of 0 to me and an actual loss for you.
And that's the teamwork/RP part of the game.
If I'm Wally Wizard, and I Leadership Freddie Fighter to stand between me and the dragon while I'm throwing spells, it frees by Billy Barbarian to charge in and benefit from the spells I'm throwing. Without Freddie, Billy has to worry more about keeping me alive so he can charge in. While Freddie's my responsibility, Billy benefits from it as well. Billy may well chose to chip in for an Aegis of recovery to keep Freddie up, but he's not obligated to.
Likewise if I'm Larry Lore Warden, and I leadership Claire the Cleric to handle buffs and heals, then everyone benefits from Claire. If Roger Rogue doesn't help keep Claire safe, then Claire (through me, and GM action) doesn't have to cast remove curse on Roger. He can pay for his own spells, she's not obligated to heal him.
It's in the best interest of the party as a whole to all heal each other, buff each other, debuff enemies, and protect each other without any sort of compensation.Except that you've already defined the cohort as not part of the party. To you, he's just some schmuck that your friend is paying to tag along; to him, you're just some schmuck that his boss hangs out with. That's the way you've defined it, anyway.
And if that's the kind of relationship with the cohort you want, that's completely fine, and completely understandable. But in that case, the only thing you can reasonably demand of the cohort is that he do what he can to help his boss. You deserve no freebies.
Likewise, of course, in such a non-relationship, the cohort cannot reasonably demand anything of you.
Still a very silly argument on your part or anyone else who thinks this way to me. The cohort isn't responsibility for the party as a whole when talking about his salary. He is technically still part of the overall group and his services are gained in the use of a feat by his leader/employer. His primary responsibility will be to help that employer (and himself) survive and if he has spells/buffs to help, he will use those before thinking about the rest of the party. This is the nature of their relationship as employee/employer or leader/follower.
Similarly, the rest of the members in the adventuring group are usually pretty selfish with self-buffs first unless the party buffs are more powerful. They are all looking out for themselves and making sure that they can survive the battles, if that includes healing of or buffing of fellow members, it is in their best interest to be able to survive.
The cohort joined ONLY because that PC took the feat to gain his services. The rest of the PC's did NOT take this feat and thus do not owe that cohort anything.
What's so funny to me about this whole argument is that people keep putting themselves in the NPC's shoes as if it was an actual PC. This is not the case, this is a case of an NPC joining only because of a feat by one PC.
Let me put it to you guys this way and turn the tables a bit:
How about if the GM puts in his own character (DMPC) and role-plays it, helps the group in combat, and then demands that everyone in the group pay him an equal cut? You and your party members didn't ask the GM to put in that NPC, but now you are on the hook for giving him an equal share? Is that fair to the rest of the party that the GM didn't just give him a few things that only he could use and say that he found some stuff on his own, but rather cuts into the profits/treasure/loot of the rest of the party? I'm sure that any of you would be pissed if your GM did that. I know whenever I've had to do a DMPC, I never ask my players to provide for it, that'd be silly. I give him a few little items to keep him survivable and not worry about money, this keeps the players happy and in essence keeps the DMPC happy.
There are 2 factors at work here. Mechancal and roleplaying.
Roleplaying wise, the Druids AC wolf doesn't want a cut, so it doesn't get one. If it did want one somehow, the characters would discuss it.
Mechanically, you spending a feat so that I get free Haste, Heal, or half price items, is a lot more useful to me than you getting +1 to your attack rolls with 1 weapon.
Since this feat has the potential to dwindle down into uselessness for you, and it was so useful for me, I should probably help make sure the feat stays beneficial to us both instead of being a net gain of 0 to me and an actual loss for you.
And that's the teamwork/RP part of the game.
If I'm Wally Wizard, and I Leadership Freddie Fighter to stand between me and the dragon while I'm throwing spells, it frees by Billy Barbarian to charge in and benefit from the spells I'm throwing. Without Freddie, Billy has to worry more about keeping me alive so he can charge in. While Freddie's my responsibility, Billy benefits from it as well. Billy may well chose to chip in for an Aegis of recovery to keep Freddie up, but he's not obligated to.
Likewise if I'm Larry Lore Warden, and I leadership Claire the Cleric to handle buffs and heals, then everyone benefits from Claire. If Roger Rogue doesn't help keep Claire safe, then Claire (through me, and GM action) doesn't have to cast remove curse on Roger. He can pay for his own spells, she's not obligated to heal him.
I could analyze this deeper, but we basically agree, so there's no need.
The second part I think is the silliest part of this whole argument. What stops the party cleric from healing the other PC's but not the cohort? Answer: It's in the best interest of the party as a whole to all heal each other, buff each other, debuff enemies, and protect each other without any sort of compensation. The compensation comes at the end when they find that treasure/loot off their enemies. Then the cohort gets his pay from his employer/leader. If the rest of the party wants to give more (if...
"Alright Connor Cohort. We all need to pitch in to deafeat the evil Sorceress. Start buffing and healing all of us. All for one and one for all!"
Party wins...
"Connor what are you doing? This treasure is mine. You want some? Talk to the guy who hired you."
What's so funny to me about this whole argument is that people keep putting themselves in the NPC's shoes as if it was an actual PC. This is not the case, this is a case of an NPC joining only because of a feat by one PC.
This is what was meant by "people don't walk around with PC/NPC written over their head."
Why would an NPC behave any less logically than PC? Do NPCs not like living? Do NPCs like to be treated as second class citizens?
The second part I think is the silliest part of this whole argument. What stops the party cleric from healing the other PC's but not the cohort? Answer: It's in the best interest of the party as a whole to all heal each other, buff each other, debuff enemies, and protect each other without any sort of compensation. The compensation comes at the end when they find that treasure/loot off their enemies. Then the cohort gets his pay from his employer/leader. If the rest of the party wants to give more (if..."Alright Connor Cohort. We all need to pitch in to deafeat the evil Sorceress. Start buffing and healing all of us. All for one and one for all!"
Party wins...
"Connor what are you doing? This treasure is mine. You want some? Talk to the guy who hired you."
Depends on who is talking to Connor IMHO, is it their leader or one of the party members? If it's his leader, he'll agree with no questions asked, if it's a different party member he'll decide on a case-by-case basis what he thinks is best.
This should be taken care of beforehand as a contract between the cohort and the PC who has the leadership feat. Connor is a NPC so if the GM or PC w/ leadership plays him like that I'd tell him to get lost.
How about this scenario:
GM: I've decided to add another party member to your group. His name is Ralph the Ranger.
PC's: Okay, but we might not need him to join us.
GM: That's fine that you think that, but I feel you need more help to get past some of the battles ahead.
PC's: Okay... fine whatever, lets go.
Later on that night...
GM: You guys find 1000 gold, 1 ring of protection +1, one long sword +1
PC 1: Let's divide up the loot, there are 4 of us so that's 250g each, who wants the ring and who wants the sword?
PC 2: Okay, 250g on my sheet, I'll roll for the ring
PC 3: 250g got it, I'll roll for the sword.
PC 4: 250...K I'll roll for the ring.
GM: Hold on guys, Ralph the Ranger gets an equal cut of the profits and he'll be rolling for the sword as well... So that's 200g each.
All the PC's: What?! BS! You didn't tell us that! We told you we didn't need the DMPC, but you insisted.
GM: Yep, and he needs to be geared up too.
The way it should be is that the GM says that the PC's find those items and he just marks down a couple things on the DMPC sheet that the NPC found so that the share isn't coming out of the party's fund.
Now with a cohort, the GM can do the same thing and give him a couple of things, see if the PC's will hand out things they don't want, or have the PC w/ the leadership feat agree to a contract of 1000g/month + lodging/food. See how nicely that would work instead?
What's so funny to me about this whole argument is that people keep putting themselves in the NPC's shoes as if it was an actual PC. This is not the case, this is a case of an NPC joining only because of a feat by one PC.This is what was meant by "people don't walk around with PC/NPC written over their head."
Why would an NPC behave any less logically than PC? Do NPCs not like living? Do NPCs like to be treated as second class citizens?
I think you are failing to understand or purposely trying to incite people with silly arguments like this.
Let's break it down:
1) This is absolutely an NPC - he is ran by the PC w/ the leadership feat and the GM, no one else has any say in his build and how he is role-played.
2) The RAW do not specifically state that the cohort gets any compensation whatsoever, so that would be interpreted by the GM at that table and the party members involved.
3) The cohort is NOT a full member of the party, he's a follower as per the RAW. As a follower, he is most likely being "employed" by the PC with the leadership feat. Thus, he does NOT get a full share of the party loot as a whole. His compensation should be determined by the PC w/ the feat and the GM ahead of time to stop any silly arguments like this from erupting.
4) Any and all arguments of what people do in combat as relating to compensation is asinine. This should never be factored in as they equal out in the end by everyone watching everyone's back to survive as a whole.
5) If someone wants to play a 2nd PC of equal level, then that PC would get a full share, he is not following anyone because of a leadership feat and not role-played by the GM. He is role-played and played solely by the Player who wanted a 2nd PC.
Any questions?
Let's break it down:
1) This is absolutely an NPC...
You're talking about game mechanics. Slade is talking about in-world logic and fairness. Your arguments, true though I'm sure they are, are irrelevant to his point.
OK, here's a new metaphor. The PCs are The Beatles. The cohort is Yoko Ono. She starts following John Lennon around, helping out whenever she can and working as hard as anyone else. Should she suddenly start getting 20% of everything the Beatles make?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's break it down:
1) This is absolutely an NPC...You're talking about game mechanics. Slade is talking about in-world logic and fairness. Your arguments, true though I'm sure they are, are irrelevant to his point.
OK, here's a new metaphor. The PCs are The Beatles. The cohort is Yoko Ono. She starts following John Lennon around, helping out whenever she can and working as hard as anyone else. Should she suddenly start getting 20% of everything the Beatles make?
It's really this simple:
1) PC w/ Leadership is the leader or employer of the Cohort
2) Cohort is the follower or employee of the PC w/ leadership.
3) PC and Cohort come to an agreement and/or sign a contract for the cohort's services.
4) They adventure together with the PC's friends, they all heal/buff/help each other in combat with the cohort's primary focus being on protecting himself and his employer.
5) Loot is found, divided up amongst the PC's.
6) End of month/week arrives, the PC w/ the leadership feat gives the cohort his agreed upon salary in exchange for the services he's rendered.
7) Cohort is very happy, he got his pay for doing his job and doing it well.
8) Other party members are appreciative of the cohort and his help and give him a bonus to help the whole party survive, a +2 longsword is in the "party funds" and they give it to him for free.
9) Cohort is even happier.
10) Party of adventurers go on to become rich, respected, feared by their enemies, and famous. Campaign concludes on a happy note with everyone (including the cohort) retiring with vast wealth/power.
Otherwise it'd be like this:
1) PC w/ Leadership is the leader or employer of the Cohort
2) Cohort is the follower or employee of the PC w/ leadership.
3) PC and Cohort come to an agreement and/or sign a contract for the cohort's services.
4) They adventure together with the PC's friends, they all heal/buff/help each other in combat with the cohort's primary focus being on protecting himself and his employer.
5) Loot is found, divided up amongst the PC's.
6) Cohort gets greedy and says, "I am a full member of the party and am now entitled to a full share of the loot!"
7) Party is surprised by the new development and explain that the cohort is in the employ of PC w/ leadership feat and that he will get paid at the end of the week/month as agreed upon.
8) Cohort becomes angry and refuses to do anything else for the party because he thinks that the contract he signed doesn't apply to him now.
9) Party chemistry has broken down, the campaign has broken down to petty arguments, and then the posts on the Paizo boards ensue!
10) The campaign ends, so does the fun.
Tell me, which would you prefer as a GM and a player?
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 harms me if he get a share of the treasure.
If he doesn't, or you pay for it, and it doesn't drain party resources (such as healing from the healers) and does not endanger the party (such as failing stealth checks), i don't care if you bring your squire, a talking parrot, or a pair of blue suede shoes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's so funny to me about this whole argument is that people keep putting themselves in the NPC's shoes as if it was an actual PC. This is not the case, this is a case of an NPC joining only because of a feat by one PC.This is what was meant by "people don't walk around with PC/NPC written over their head."
Why would an NPC behave any less logically than PC? Do NPCs not like living? Do NPCs like to be treated as second class citizens?
They don't. The NPC king is not a second grade citizen. Your squire, however, is.
That's why the king can level up beyond your level, and the cohort can't level beyond your level minus two
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The adventuring company (group) is just that, a company. I bought into my company, i receive substantially more compensation than other employees. That's what a cohort is, an employee, not a member of the company.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the cohort is genuinely helping everyone equally, like a buffing or crafting (or both) caster, then the party might be willing to split loot with the cohort. But it's still their call, even then. No one twisted the player's arm who took leadership into doing so. If the party is not willing to pay for his cohort, then it's up to him if he still wants one and how helpful the cohort will be to the party.
The cohort is ultimately with the leader PC, and no one else. He chose to take on a subordinate/assistant, it's his responsibility to pay the person. It is absolutely not the responsibility of any other PC to provide the cohort with a stipend.
And OOC absolutely freaking matters. I want my share of loot, I have things I'd like to own to enhance my abilities, I don't want to have to put off obtaining the new shiny I've been wanting for another several sessions just because you decided to buy a best friend. You taking Leadership and expecting it to justify "in character" getting an extra share of loot is abusive and unfair to me, and a completely dickish thing to do. It's a more subtle and innocent-looking attempt at theft, no different than the klepto rogue I mentioned.
If the cohort is genuinely helping everyone equally, like a buffing or crafting (or both) caster, then the party might be willing to split loot with the cohort. But it's still their call, even then. No one twisted the player's arm who took leadership into doing so. If the party is not willing to pay for his cohort, then it's up to him if he still wants one and how helpful the cohort will be to the party.
The cohort is ultimately with the leader PC, and no one else. He chose to take on a subordinate/assistant, it's his responsibility to pay the person. It is absolutely not the responsibility of any other PC to provide the cohort with a stipend.
And OOC absolutely freaking matters. I want my share of loot, I have things I'd like to own to enhance my abilities, I don't want to have to put off obtaining the new shiny I've been wanting for another several sessions just because you decided to buy a best friend. You taking Leadership and expecting it to justify "in character" getting an extra share of loot is abusive and unfair to me, and a completely dickish thing to do. It's a more subtle and innocent-looking attempt at theft, no different than the klepto rogue I mentioned.
Right on Stream, you are saying exactly what I am saying. I think that some people who are posting are actually trying to justify themselves in this argument because they like to take the leadership feat and have their own cohorts get equal shares from the rest of the party because they are just greedy and want some kind of justification for doing so. They need to really check themselves and realize that that cohort comes with some costs to them (a feat and providing for said cohort), they get a best friend, follower, and someone to do the mundane things for them. Someone to flank with or create magical items for them, someone to heal and buff them.
So what if some of those spells help out the rest of the party? They are still getting other buffs and help from the other members as well. The biggest thing is that the person who has the leadership feat and thus the cohort are still coming out much more powerful in the end even if they chose to give that cohort a stipend or salary.
You keep saying "let me put this simply" or some variant thereof. So let me put this simply: If you treat a cohort as though he is merely the employee of your friend, you should expect him to treat you as if you are merely the friend of his employer.
Is this supposed to be some kind of special revelation? Of course I would expect to be viewed as the friend (or associate depending on the relationships in the original adventuring group) of the cohort's leader. If he has a choice between saving me or his leader, obviously he's going to save his leader. That's where his loyalty lies. Were you expecting that statement to have some kind of heretofore unnoticed significance?
What's so funny to me about this whole argument is that people keep putting themselves in the NPC's shoes as if it was an actual PC.With all due respect, what people are actually doing is putting themselves in the NPC's shoes as if the NPC were a character, where in practice your approach is to treat the NPC as a convenient statblock. Thus, you think that "an NPC should behave logically" is "a silly argument" where I think "an NPC should behave logically" is, in fact, an essential aspect of roleplaying.
Now, in practice I don't think we treat cohorts too differently, and I don't disagree with your first list at all. Your second list, however, is an embarrassingly dishonest characterization of any position that anyone has advocated.
You keep saying "let me put this simply" or some variant thereof. So let me put this simply: If you treat a cohort as though he is merely the employee of your friend, you should expect him to treat you as if you are merely the friend of his employer.
gustavo, think we're on the same page. I don't know why you suddenly started talking about the cohort taking a share of your wealth when we'd already established that in your model he didn't, but hey.
No, with all due respect to you, if you are playing the cohort as a PC, you are trying to get ANOTHER full share out of the party as if that was a 2nd PC for you, which in effect cheats your fellow players out of their share because you are too cheap with your PC who took the leadership feat to provide for your employee.
I do not play in a socialist game, I do not provide for someone else's follower and do not need to be guilt tripped into doing so. If you want to play a 2nd PC and get full shares of the treasure in my games, do it. I have no problem with that, but if you are playing a cohort as a PC to get a full share, I do have a problem with that. My character didn't agree to pay YOUR little buddy a copper piece for him to join the party. He's your PC's responsibility all the way through and through and to say otherwise is asinine.
The cohort is the follower of ONE PC only, that is the PC who pays him and took the leadership feat to create the contract in game. Out of game he's an NPC with 2 levels lower who follows along with whatever his employer wants for the most part.
I expect that cohort to treat my PC as if I am the friend of his employer, he doesn't have to listen to me or do anything special for me. I'll heal him and buff him if I can in battle, and expect the same out of him, but I don't charge him to do so. If I'm crafting items I'll charge him the same as he'll charge me. He is not a partner though, he's an employee of one of my friends and my friend is the one who should pay him.
The cohort is an employee? So what is the Leader, his "boss" who can order him around? I don't remember it saying that. I could be wrong though.
Let me give you guys an actual example that came up in a game I GM.
3 player party, one character died. The player decided to make a new character who had taken Leadership.
The 2 characters were brothers. One of the brothers was a Fighter. The other brother was a Synthesist Summoner. The brothers had been travelling together. They met the party together. The party hired them together. All 4 of them had reason to clear the next dungeon so might as well team up, right?
There was no talk of "Hey, can I bring my brother?". Nor was one brother an employee. Can you even tell for sure so far which is the cohort? My other players couldn't and their player didn't mention it.
In the dungeon neither brother was a slouch. Fighter and Summoner both entered melee. Summoner buffed the entire party when he would buff, not just himself or his brother. If either brother went down protecting his blood was BOTH the other brothers top priority.
Fast forward to the end of the dungeon. It's cleared and it's time to split the shares. Money was not discussed when the brothers were taken on. How would they split it? All 4 decided to split the money evenly. Everyone had done an equal share.
Which is good. The player later told me if the other 2 had taken essentially double the share (from the perspective of the brothers) and tried to make them take half of 1/3, they would have attacked the party for trying to "rip off the new guys". And the brothers were so well crafted they might have been able to beat the other characters even with one being 2 levels back. This speaks to so called "cohort power".
So, who was the cohort? It was the Summoner. But guess what. The brothers weren't really brothers. The cohort was a prince in hiding, and the player character was his bodyguard. That's right, the PLAYER CHARACTER...took ORDERS...from the COHORT.
NOOOO!! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!
All right enough melodrama. I'm just saying anything can be built. Sure you can build a cohort who doesn't even want any money. But that doesn't mean it's always that way or it has to be that way.
gustavo, think we're on the same page. I don't know why you suddenly started talking about the cohort taking a share of your wealth when we'd already established that in your model he didn't, but hey.
I'm not sure we are im the same page.
My page is:
1) the cohort is a subordinate to the leadership character, hence the leader. What's the relationship is something that PC and the DM have to create cooperatively. It could ve his henchmen, a squire, his little sister, or some barbarian he saved the life once and now is serving him for ten years.
2) he is not a party member, because of 1)
3) he doesn't deserve a full share, or even a half share, because of 3)
4) he is an NPC, and such my character could get friends with him, love him, hate him or be indifferent, depending of his beheaviour, just like with any other NPC, player controlled or not
5) if we are friends, I could give him my stuff when I get an upgrade, instead of selling it.
6) if we aren't, I won't give him.
7) if, as some one was suggesting, his share of the loot is the 3% of the party wealth, based on a NPC with -2 levels WBL, I don't care to give him his share. BUT that's not a full, or half share. That's tender, and I'm not going to cry for 6 copper coins every 100 gold I make. That's actually much less than recei img the extr stuff when people upgrade.
If you, as the PC who take Leadership, agree with that, e erybody is happy. If you don't, please rake some other feat. You can't take a feat and force everybody to swallow it and give your feat a full ( or half) share of the treasure just because you like "leadership" more than "skill focus diplomacy". In the same way, i'd ask you to take other feat instead of "team power atrack", that gives ME penalties to hit because you want onuses to damage. If I didn't ask for a squire, I don't have to pay for one.
Let's break it down:
1) This is absolutely an NPC...You're talking about game mechanics. Slade is talking about in-world logic and fairness. Your arguments, true though I'm sure they are, are irrelevant to his point.
OK, here's a new metaphor. The PCs are The Beatles. The cohort is Yoko Ono. She starts following John Lennon around, helping out whenever she can and working as hard as anyone else. Should she suddenly start getting 20% of everything the Beatles make?
I she singing and performing, doing concerts, writing hit songs? If she is doing all that, then yes she deserves a cut. If she is just hanging around and not contributing to the band, then no she doesn't.
That actually sounds to me like it should have been two PC's rather than a PC w/ leadership and cohort, but in your games you guys can play it the way you want and have fun doing so.
It sounds like a good story, but if we took the RAW and applied them, the characters should have been flip-flopped or the PC should still be leading the cohort around as part of their agreement as to keep their real titles/relationship a secret.
In my group our Oracle was a Chelaxian noble and one of his childhood friends and confidant joined the party. This cohort was more or less a bodyguard (Two-weapon fighter) at this point and took all of his orders from the oracle. He'd run and fetch things for the oracle and protect him. He was a Chelaxian human who sneered and threatened our Tiefling Magus in the party and the only one who kept them from each others' throats was the Oracle.
Fast forward to later in the campaign: It was found out that the oracle had sold his soul to a devil and we encountered a demon who told us, revealing this insidious secret pact. The magus (CN in alignment) was offered a deal... Give the oracle to the demon for safe passage and not having to fight off the demon and a bunch of his allies while the rest of the party was under the demon's control. The magus agreed after a bit of internal deliberation. The oracle was taken, the holds on the rest of the party were dropped and the cohort attacked the magus. The cohort died very quickly and no one was around to grieve for him. Only my PC was upset by the demise of the oracle as they were friends, but he understood the reasoning and the motivations behind why the magus allowed him to be taken.
So my point is that I think this played out beautifully in our campaign. It depends on the campaign and the story lines. We didn't split monetary finds with the cohort, but we did often times allow the Oracle's player to give the cohort hand-me-downs that the other PC's didn't need. Otherwise the Oracle provided for the cohort in every other way. As it should be done.
The cohort is an employee? So what is the Leader, his "boss" who can order him around? I don't remember it saying that. I could be wrong
I doesn't have to be an employee. Morgan Freeman character in Ro in Hood isn't even paid, so he is not an employee.
It ould be your lover, a little brother, an apprentice, your squire, a journalist bard that follow your character to write a book about his deeds, someone who was saved your life, or an honor bound slave.
What he is, is your follower. And you are his leader. Hence "Leadership" and "cohort". He is not part of the party. Nor the other 30 level one guys you also get with leadership, that are also "living people" with "full personalities" and all that things your cohort is. You could have 30 lvl 1 brothers if you want. They don't get 1/30th of the treasure though.
which certainly seems to say that (a) you don't want to pay the cohort, and (b) you feel comfortable demanding that the leader doesn't take the cohort with him because (subsequently) (c) the cohort's presence causes you harm, since (d) he's taking a share of treasure even though (a) he wasn't.
No, I provided two examples of how the cohort could be a hindrance. First example, if he gets part of the share, seconf exampmle, if he gets in the middle when the wizard starts fireballing.
That was in response to some one (can't remember of it was you, this has been long) who said that if the cohort doesn't get paid with a share, he wouldn't add the rest of the party in his bardic sings. That's perfectly fine, but if in combat situations someone isn't giving 100% of himself, then I'd ask the liege to leave the guy at home because he is in the middle of the fighting when the wizard has to fireball, he is getting hurt and need to be healed, and dropping orc heads through the wells and alerting every goblin in Moria
What he is, is your follower. And you are his leader. Hence "Leadership" and "cohort". He is not part of the party. Nor the other 30 level one guys you also get with leadership, that are also "living people" with "full personalities" and all that things your cohort is. You could have 30 lvl 1 brothers if you want. They don't get 1/30th of the treasure though.
"This feat enables you to attract a loyal cohort and a number of devoted subordinates who assist you."
It does not say he is your "follower". It does not say you are his "leader".
He assists you. Maybe you define that as "follows all your orders", and that's fine, but not everyone does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fast forward to the end of the dungeon. It's cleared and it's time to split the shares. Money was not discussed when the brothers were taken on. How would they split it? All 4 decided to split the money evenly. Everyone had done an equal share.Which is good. The player later told me if the other 2 had taken essentially double the share (from the perspective of the brothers) and tried to make them take half of 1/3, they would have attacked the party for trying to "rip off the new guys". And the brothers were so well crafted they might have been able to beat the other characters even with one being 2 levels back. This speaks to so called "cohort power".
So, who was the cohort? It was the Summoner. But guess what. The brothers weren't really brothers. The cohort was a prince in hiding, and the player character was his bodyguard. That's right, the PLAYER CHARACTER...took ORDERS...from the COHORT.
Why use the cohort rules at all, in this case, when what you really seemed to want to include were 2 PCs for 1 player? To cut one of the characters down a couple of levels?
What he is, is your follower. And you are his leader. Hence "Leadership" and "cohort". He is not part of the party. Nor the other 30 level one guys you also get with leadership, that are also "living people" with "full personalities" and all that things your cohort is. You could have 30 lvl 1 brothers if you want. They don't get 1/30th of the treasure though.
"This feat enables you to attract a loyal cohort and a number of devoted subordinates who assist you."
It does not say he is your "follower". It does not say you are his "leader".
He assists you. Maybe you define that as "follows all your orders", and that's fine, but not everyone does.
*Hops on the soapbox*
In your game you are able to define it however you wish, but the majority of people (GMs and players) find the "loyal cohort" to be a subordinate who follows the orders of the PC as per the leadership feat. Note: The word "LEADER" in the leadership, that means that the PC is the cohort's leader, he is then by default a follower who pretty much does whatever the leader says as long as it won't outright kill that cohort.
The leader is the boss, the head honcho, the guy who calls the shots. The cohort is the subordinate, the employee, the grunt, the peon, the servant, the squire, the younger brother, the less experienced one, and saw the wisdom in deciding to join the leader's employ and follow along with him and his powerful friends. Motivations differ, but the fact remains that if we go by RAW then the cohort is definitely and unequivocally the one who is the NOT in charge in that relationship.
In all games though, there are good/fun story lines and it sounds like your game was one of them and you were the GM, so RULE 0 applies and you can do whatever you want or allow whatever you want in your game. I won't judge you or anyone else on that fact, but if you ask and then defend why RAW that cohort shouldn't be an equal then I have a problem with it.
*Hops off soapbox*
What he is, is your follower. And you are his leader. Hence "Leadership" and "cohort". He is not part of the party. Nor the other 30 level one guys you also get with leadership, that are also "living people" with "full personalities" and all that things your cohort is. You could have 30 lvl 1 brothers if you want. They don't get 1/30th of the treasure though.
"This feat enables you to attract a loyal cohort and a number of devoted subordinates who assist you."
It does not say he is your "follower". It does not say you are his "leader".
He assists you. Maybe you define that as "follows all your orders", and that's fine, but not everyone does.
He is a loyal cohort. And you are his leader. Hence the name of the feat, Leadership.
He doesn't have to follow all your orders, he is not an automaton. But none of your followers have to follow all your orders. They wont follow "suicide" for example. That doesn't change the fact you are the leader, and they are the followers
which certainly seems to say that (a) you don't want to pay the cohort, and (b) you feel comfortable demanding that the leader doesn't take the cohort with him because (subsequently) (c) the cohort's presence causes you harm, since (d) he's taking a share of treasure even though (a) he wasn't.No, I provided two examples of how the cohort could be a hindrance. First example, if he gets part of the share, seconf exampmle, if he gets in the middle when the wizard starts fireballing.
That was in response to some one (can't remember of it was you, this has been long) who said that if the cohort doesn't get paid with a share, he wouldn't add the rest of the party in his bardic sings. That's perfectly fine, but if in combat situations someone isn't giving 100% of himself, then I'd ask the liege to leave the guy at home because he is in the middle of the fighting when the wizard has to fireball, he is getting hurt and need to be healed, and dropping orc heads through the wells and alerting every goblin in Moria
Just to make sure I understand you. You want the cohort to support you, cast healing spells on you, buff you, protect you from the monsters, etc. But you don't want heal him, buff him, or support him in any other way? Remember that if he is being healed, those are hits that another party member didn't take.
I just added a cohort in a campaign I am in. Since we are in the middle of a "dungeon" the GM added him as a "prisoner" (actually a druid that was trapped in animal form). So far he has told us about nearby potential threats, a little about the BBEG, helped kill a giant, and then healed the fighter (whom had been hit by the giant).
Now explain to me, why this character doesn't deserve a cut, not an even cut or even a half cut, but some share of the treasure? To be honest he has contributed as much or more in one session, than the 5th PC we added a half dozen sessions ago.
which certainly seems to say that (a) you don't want to pay the cohort, and (b) you feel comfortable demanding that the leader doesn't take the cohort with him because (subsequently) (c) the cohort's presence causes you harm, since (d) he's taking a share of treasure even though (a) he wasn't.No, I provided two examples of how the cohort could be a hindrance. First example, if he gets part of the share, seconf exampmle, if he gets in the middle when the wizard starts fireballing.
That was in response to some one (can't remember of it was you, this has been long) who said that if the cohort doesn't get paid with a share, he wouldn't add the rest of the party in his bardic sings. That's perfectly fine, but if in combat situations someone isn't giving 100% of himself, then I'd ask the liege to leave the guy at home because he is in the middle of the fighting when the wizard has to fireball, he is getting hurt and need to be healed, and dropping orc heads through the wells and alerting every goblin in Moria
Just to make sure I understand you. You want the cohort to support you, cast healing spells on you, buff you, protect you from the monsters, etc. But you don't want heal him, buff him, or support him in any other way? Remember that if he is being healed, those are hits that another party member didn't take.
I didn't ask for the cohort. I didn't ask him to heal, buff, or protect me. I didn't even ask him to come to the combat situations, and I actually don't want him to come. BUT if he comes for whatever reasons (like he is really really in crush with you), then he either fight as a full soldier, or he is just a dead weight.
Do you want to bring Alfred to the battle, Mr Batman? Fine, but then he has to be useful. Otherwise, leave him in the batcave, right besides the other 30 followers you also got with the feat.
I just added a cohort in a campaign I am in. Since we are in the middle of a "dungeon" the GM added him as a "prisoner" (actually a druid that was trapped in animal form). So far he has told us about nearby potential threats, a little about the BBEG, helped kill a giant, and then healed the fighter (whom had been hit by the giant).
Now explain to me, why this character doesn't deserve a cut, not an even cut or even a half cut, but some share of the treasure? To be honest he has contributed as much or more in one session, than the 5th PC we added a half dozen sessions ago.
As I said, if your companion is getting 3% of the treasure (to follow the WBL guidelines of an NPC with -2 levels), I couldn't care less. That's like 6 copper every 100 gold pieces I have to give up. I often give more to the local barmaid as a tip.
There's no doubt you could build cohorts that are much better than other Players. For example, you could get a Summoner with a quadrupedal mount eidolon with pounce for your raging barbarian lancer, and I have no doubt he'll be better than the party monk or rogue. Bassically almost any NPC spellcaster will outshine any non-spellcaster PC. I still don't see why your cohort should get a share of the treasure for stealing the spotlight to other players. Or how making the eidolon of your cohort that you got through a feat, not only more powerful than his whole character, but also take a part of the treasure so his monk will have to wait even more for his amulet of mighty fist, will make that other player happy.
|
I'm the one who brought up the magical NPC flags, for good or ill.
Another issue with the cohort thing. Leadership doesn't necessitate its an employee.
Arguments could be made that stuff like apprentices being cohorts, or even hangers on. That dude who really likes the paladin and can carry his junk but thinks the rest of the party is jerks.
Notice how the above could really easily be a PC.
Luke Skywalker, the younger samurai from the Seven Samurai, and many others could very easilly mechanically be defined as 'The Head Samurai's cohort' or 'Obi-Wan's cohort, that damn farm boy.'
Alternately, people might say Obi-Wan is a NPC guide or something.
Subordinate relationship or no, doesn't define your 'PC-hood.' Would it be wrong if say Luke wanted a part of an adventure he contributed to?
Again, the against argument really sounds like KODT Untouchable-Trio style 'Its just a NPC, you're just paying good money back to the DM' stuff. I'm willing to bet the 'don't waste money on cohorts' side would also likely get suddenly cheesed if the cohort opted to not help out a PC who'd been arguing he deserves no cash, no healing and nothing else.
Again though, this is why I don't think cohorts should be RPed by the players. He can direct their actions, but not to too much micromanagement. The DM should be pulling the strings, instead of it being PC-2. That also should help to make it clear that the Cohort is a person and not just 'Wizard what buffs me.'
And again, the Players in my opinion, shouldn't be building their own cohorts. You're not frankensteining one up, one's coming to you to apply for the job.
I didn't ask for the cohort. I didn't ask him to heal, buff, or protect me. I didn't even ask him to come to the combat situations, and I actually don't want him to come. BUT if he comes for whatever reasons (like he is really really in crush with you), then he either fight as a full soldier, or he is just a dead weight.
Did you ask the other PCs to come along too? Didn't just meet them in an inn somewhere, or were forced together due to happenstance?
As stated, he doesn't wear a sign saying 'Hi I'm your cohort today' and him being subordinate to another PC means /nothing/. If the paladin answers to the cleric in the party, does he not get a share either?
Do you want to bring Alfred to the battle, Mr Batman? Fine, but then he has to be useful. Otherwise, leave him in the batcave, right besides the other 30 followers you also got with the feat.So you really are saying that you get to decide how someone else uses his feat. I disagree, and think your perspective is staggeringly arrogant.
You're under no obligation to save Alfred (or, more reasonably, Robin), but if Batman wants to bring his sidekick/servant/pet cat along, you have zero right to prevent him from doing so even if the cohort doesn't go out of his way to help you since you haven't given him any reason to do so.
Sorry, now I'm back to being confused about your position. I thought I understood it, but "my friend took leadership, so his cohort is his responsibility and on his payroll, but if his cohort doesn't help me, his cohort doesn't get to come with us" is just baffling.
What is being said, If I understand correctly is.
We are roughly at Power Level X and Danger Level Y with Reward Level Z pre-leadership/Cohort.
After taking leadership we are at Power Level X still or X+(any value) but either Danger Level has increased to Y + (Significant Value) or Reward level has decreased to Z - (Significant Value).
So in short what is being said is that he would insist the cohort not be brought along under the circumstances where regardless of new Power Level of the party the Risk Level had increased by some substantial value for the PC's due to the cohort or the Reward level had decreased for the PC's by some substantial value due to the cohort.
I do not see this as rude or arrogant at all, it is a simple statement of "Do not expect me to bleed for or lose rewards for your class feature. Period full stop."
I see this as reasonable due to the fact that there are plenty of adventurers who would gladly shed "dead weight" that cut into their rewards and raised their risk.
Now, you must of course balance the value of the Cohort to the group against the value lost via increased risk/reduced individual rewards, however that calculation is all that I believe is being espoused.
I can totally believe a PC saying "No, Timmy your childhood friend cannot come along as he is a burden/makes everything more dangerous/takes the loot for which he does not contribute enough."
This should be settled in game IMO.
I think you guys are reading WAY too much into the feat name. The description specifically says "assists". Not follows your orders. That's RAW.
I've assisted plenty of people in my life. People I liked and respected. That doesn't mean I thought of them as my leader. I didn't consider myself their subordinate, and I am damn sure didn't take orders from them.
Do you want to bring Alfred to the battle, Mr Batman? Fine, but then he has to be useful. Otherwise, leave him in the batcave, right besides the other 30 followers you also got with the feat.So you really are saying that you get to decide how someone else uses his feat. I disagree, and think your perspective is staggeringly arrogant.
You're under no obligation to save Alfred (or, more reasonably, Robin), but if Batman wants to bring his sidekick/servant/pet cat along, you have zero right to prevent him from doing so even if the cohort doesn't go out of his way to help you since you haven't given him any reason to do so.
Once again, I don't care if he doesn't go out of his way to help me. I don't need him to come and cast Bull's strength on me, or risk his life to defend me. But back to the example bard sing example, he doesn't have to "go out of his way to help me", the sing affects everybody in the radius. He is just deliberatelly leaving part of the party out of the effect, so he is not giving 100% in combat. If he is not going to be a combatant, then we are carrying deadweight, as a non-combatant guy who just standby (or standby at 50%) DOES have a negative influence in the whole party. We can't fireball when he is in the middle, he is yet another guy to cast invisibility on to sneak, he can fail Stealth checks, he needs to eat so we have to carry more rations or the ranger has to roll Survival to find more food, and now we don't fit inside the Rope Trick because we are over the limit.
EDIT: To give an example:
Pippin and Samwise could be cohorts in LOTR. Samwise didn't specifically help anyone but Frodo the PC. Pippin did the same with Merrin the PC. Samwise was cool to have, was helpful, and wasn't a jerk. Pippin on the other hand, was a complete idiot, and a hindrance. I don't care if you bring Samwise and he doesn't actively goes out of his way to help me, but I do care if you bring a NPC which just is there doing nothing productive and being an annoyance.
Sorry, now I'm back to being confused about your position. I thought I understood it, but "my friend took leadership, so his cohort is his responsibility and on his payroll, but if his cohort doesn't help me, his cohort doesn't get to come with us" is just baffling.
That's because I'm debating different people, which use different examples. The one I was quoting in that sentence brings up a different enviroment. One in which the companion comes and gets a share:
Now explain to me, why this character doesn't deserve a cut, not an even cut or even a half cut, but some share of the treasure? To be honest he has contributed as much or more in one session, than the 5th PC we added a half dozen sessions ago.His cohort doesn't need to come and help me, or buff me, or make me a breakfast. If he does, we could get a friendship. If he doesn't, no problem. He doesn't have to get out of his way to help anyone but his leader. But if in combat, he deliberatelly makes himself an idiot, (such as "I have a bow, but I'll delay my initative until the orcs have attacked the barbarian PC before I shoot" or "I sing, but I leave half the party out of the sing" ) then I don't want to go to combat with him.
I think you guys are reading WAY too much into the feat name. The description specifically says "assists". Not follows your orders. That's RAW.
Maybe it's an issue of language barrier, as I'm not a native English speaker, and the direct translations to my language might not be correct.
What does "loyal cohort" means? What does "leadership" means?
If he assists you, then he is "your assistant", right? What is an "assistant"?
Did you ask the other PCs to come along too?
I didn't ask for the cohort. I didn't ask him to heal, buff, or protect me. I didn't even ask him to come to the combat situations, and I actually don't want him to come. BUT if he comes for whatever reasons (like he is really really in crush with you), then he either fight as a full soldier, or he is just a dead weight.
Yes.
That's because I'm debating different people, which use different examples. The one I was quoting in that sentence brings up a different enviroment. One in...
If the Leader commands his Bard to only buff only people who financially aid the Bard and thus take some of the pressure off the Leaders wallet that's his business.
Maybe he's doing it to motivate you to chip in. Maybe he fels like you should not benefit something from something that he paid both a feat and a portion of his gold for. I know I would be thinking that.
It doesn't actually hurt your character though. In fact having the Leader be better, indirectly helps you.
That's because I'm debating different people, which use different examples. The one I was quoting in that sentence brings up a different enviroment. One in...If the Leader commands his Bard to only buff only people who financially aid the Bard and thus take some of the pressure off the Leaders wallet that's his business.
Maybe he's doing it to motivate you to chip in. Maybe he fels like you should not benefit something from something that he paid both a feat and a portion of his gold for. I know I would be thinking that.
It doesn't actually hurt your character though. In fact having the Leader be better, indirectly helps you.
If the bard isn't eating rations, the ranger doesn't need to hunt food for him, he doesn't need to be healed by the cleric ever, the wizard can cast fireball when the bard is in the AOE without problems, we don't have to slow the pace because the bard is small and have 20' movement, we still get inside the rope trick, and he never fails a stealth check, I'm completelly happy with that.
If not, the amount of "indirect help" doesn't outweight the dead weight.
I think you guys are reading WAY too much into the feat name. The description specifically says "assists". Not follows your orders. That's RAW.
Maybe it's an issue of language barrier, as I'm not a native English speaker, and the direct translations to my language might not be correct.
What does "loyal cohort" means? What does "leadership" means?
If he assists you, then he is "your assistant", right? What is an "assistant"?
Really? We're going to do this?
Loyal - unswerving in allegiance
Cohort - companion, colleague
Assistant - a person who assists
Assist - to give usually supplementary support or aid to
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cohort
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loyal
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assistant
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assist
You obviously have access to the Internet certainly you can find your own dictionary next time.
None of those say anything about "orders" or "commands" though.
My loyal cohort who assists me can be my good friend. I don't give my friends orders.
EDIT: To give an example:
Pippin and Samwise could be cohorts in LOTR. Samwise didn't specifically help anyone but Frodo the PC. Pippin did the same with Merrin the PC. Samwise was cool to have, was helpful, and wasn't a jerk. Pippin on the other hand, was a complete idiot, and a hindrance. I don't care if you bring Samwise and he doesn't actively goes out of his way to help me, but I do care if you bring a NPC which just is there doing nothing productive and being an annoyance..
Sam may come close to being a cohort since his loyalty and devotion is to Mister Frodo. In fact, his independent life is on hold for Frodo. But not Pippin. He's far too independent. If Merry weren't along, we don't expect Pippin to not be there. If Pippin counts as a cohort, then so would Merry... both cohorts of Frodo.