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/assistYou 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.
You left "leadership" behind.
a : the office or position of a leaderAnd I didn't say he takes orders, I said he is your follower. A follower doesn't necessarelly is one who take orders:
b : one that follows the opinions or teachings of another
c : one that imitates another
Your loyal cohort who assists you could be your good friend. Or your little brother, your squire, a devoted groupie or a fan. However, you are the leader, and he is the follower.
You left "leadership" behind.
a : the office or position of a leaderAnd I didn't say he takes orders, I said he is your follower. A follower doesn't necessarelly is one who take orders:
b : one that follows the opinions or teachings of another
c : one that imitates anotherYour loyal cohort who assists you could be your good friend. Or your little brother, your squire, a devoted groupie or a fan. However, you are the leader, and he is the follower.
Now now don't move the goalpost.
1. "Leadership" wasn't on your list.
2. We are not talking about the "Followers", we are talking about the "Cohort" who is specifically NOT a "Follower".
And we're getting into the definition of words which means we are truly lost.
You left "leadership" behind.
a : the office or position of a leaderAnd I didn't say he takes orders, I said he is your follower. A follower doesn't necessarelly is one who take orders:
b : one that follows the opinions or teachings of another
c : one that imitates anotherYour loyal cohort who assists you could be your good friend. Or your little brother, your squire, a devoted groupie or a fan. However, you are the leader, and he is the follower.
Now now don't move the goalpost.
1. "Leadership" wasn't on your list.
2. We are not talking about the "Followers", we are talking about the "Cohort" who is specifically NOT a "Follower".
And we're getting into the definition of words which means we are truly lost.
I'm not moving the goalpost, you didn't kick to the first goal post. In the quoting of your own post, says:
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"?
I bolded the relevant part.
And yes, we are already lost. We are lost right from the begining. You asked for in game reasons for a cohort not getting full share. There are a dozen of them right in the first answer. Your cohort could be your squire, your apprentice, someone who follows you, a vow of poverty guy, some foreigner you saved his life once and now has a honor debt with you...
There are dozens of in-game reasons to have a relationship with a cohort who doesn't get a share. Sure, you could create a cohort where those reasons doesn't apply. But then you are doing it on purpose. If your group agrees with it, fine. Maybe it's even a group decision, like "we are short in players, someone has to take a cohort. Who is willing?", I've been there. But if your group doesn't agree with it, then take a different kind of relationship. One that doesn't take a share of the treasure from the other players who doesn't want to have a cohort around.
To reiterate a question that nobody seems to want to answer: if I bring my 30 level 1 followers (which I also get through leadership), do they get a share too? I mean, they could be my friends too. They can have personality, be a in-game person too. They can have all of them name, lives, a family to feed. So if you bring your bard, and your bard deserves a share, if I bring my 30 level 1 archers, do they get a share too?
|
What is the difference between a "hireling" who buffs the entire party and a "member" who only buffs himself? What is the difference between a level 5 party member and a level 5 cohort?The level 5 cohort is running with a level 7+ party. So they're presumably better than him, more experienced, etc.
So, if, for example, the PC wizard falls a level behind for whatever reason, will he not recieve a share until he catches up with the rest of the party?
So, if, for example, the PC wizard falls a level behind for whatever reason, will he not recieve a share until he catches up with the rest of the party?What is the difference between a "hireling" who buffs the entire party and a "member" who only buffs himself? What is the difference between a level 5 party member and a level 5 cohort?The level 5 cohort is running with a level 7+ party. So they're presumably better than him, more experienced, etc.
Bad example. The party wizard with one level behind the party rogue is still contributing far above him :P
I bolded the relevant part.
Ah. You're right. I did miss that. Let's use your definition, whatever that is. Does that match with the rest of the text? If it does great, if it does not, then I say the whole text is more important than the one word name.
To reiterate a question that nobody seems to want to answer: if I bring my 30 level 1 followers (which I also get through leadership), do they get a share too? I mean, they could be my friends too. They can have personality, be a in-game person too. They can have all of them name, lives, a family to feed. So if you bring your bard, and your bard deserves a share, if I bring my 30 level 1 archers, do they get a share too?
If they all want a share that's something I'd expect the CHARACTERS not PLAYERS to hash out in game. I expect the characters to hash out the cohort as well.
There's a lot of talk of "player mechanics" and "DMPCs". The characters don't know these terms.
So, if a PC with Leadership and another PC come into conflict, who does the cohort support? Assuming the leader hasn't done anything serious to degrade their leader-cohort relationship. If a PC with Leadership leaves the party, does the cohort go with him, or stay with the party?
If you seriously think there's any chance the answer to either of those questions is not "the leader, duh!" then I think you see the cohort more as another PC than what he really is.
Well, I always thought Leadership meant that the character that took it got an assistant. It also meant that it was the character that is responsible for equipping and feeding etc the assistant. Anything more than that, like shares or fractions thereof, will have to be negotiated with the party.
However, I seriously doubt that players are going to want to share their moolah with a lower level NPC. Just like paying one's horse, it's silly. But I as DM won't rule it out, since that's something only PC's can negotiate.
Now, as for the assistant/cohort/followers, they get access to much better equipment and training than they ever would have without agreeing to the Leadership feat. For example, a 3rd level character usually doesn't have +1 weapons and mithral full plate armor, yet if it serves a 6th level PC, it could.
Any area effect abilities that the cohort has are usually keyed to affect their PC. If other PC's are there and happen to benefit, that's nice, but it's unintended. As DM, I am not going to force a cohort to heal up a PC that is not their leader. However, that's where cohort alignment comes in, and personality of the NPC cohort.
That's my take on it. However, nobody has ever taken Leadership in my games. They seem to want to keep their feats to themselves, and don't like the idea of being responsible for a NPC.
We're playing kingmaker right now. We didn't use a leadership feat, but we convinced a defeated enemy to join with us on our mission...
He got a full share of the treasure.
Unless the cohort was a 'squire' or an 'apprentice' and that was established from the beginning, then I see them as their own character with their own reasons for doing or not doing stuff...
I (and my kingmaker paladin) would never think of stiffing him on his share of the hazard pay.
And this is where you clearly miss the point so many have tried to get through to you. OUT OF CHARACTER MATTERS! You cant take a feat, get a cohort and a bunch of followers, demand their share of treasure and expect the other PLAYERS to be happy about this.
No amount of in character justification will make you anything else then a total douchebag if you try to do this.
You want a cohort? Fine, then make up a background story and in game motivation for why he would follow you around without getting a share of the treasure. If you refuse to do that because "the cohort would get angry" then you are just being a jerk. The cohort is not a real person like the other players sitting around the table. The cohort doesn't "get angry" unless you create him that way, which means it's just YOU who wants more treasure.
^^^^^ This 100% is what i have wanted to say and couldnt think of the words to put it that clearly. many have tried to make this valid point and a few have come close. but for me this hits the nail on the head.
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.
Quote: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.
Interesting you should bring that up, because the 5th PC has done similar things to what have described. Actually in one combat he just stood there and did NOTHING, even after several actions where suggested to him.
I'm curious as to why you continue to think that a cohort is going to act like an idiot in combat? You are bringing up characters in stories that did things the author wrote to have certain things happen. BTW, I am sure that Faramir was glad that Pippin came along with the party.
|
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.
There is a difference between a follower and a cohort. A cohort is not a robot who is going to do everything you say without question. They still have to be taken care of or they will leave. An NPC with class levels is still a PC two levels lower because you all follow the same rules.
|
|
I bolded the relevant part.Ah. You're right. I did miss that. Let's use your definition, whatever that is. Does that match with the rest of the text? If it does great, if it does not, then I say the whole text is more important than the one word name.
To reiterate a question that nobody seems to want to answer: if I bring my 30 level 1 followers (which I also get through leadership), do they get a share too? I mean, they could be my friends too. They can have personality, be a in-game person too. They can have all of them name, lives, a family to feed. So if you bring your bard, and your bard deserves a share, if I bring my 30 level 1 archers, do they get a share too?If they all want a share that's something I'd expect the CHARACTERS not PLAYERS to hash out in game. I expect the characters to hash out the cohort as well.
There's a lot of talk of "player mechanics" and "DMPCs". The characters don't know these terms.
And this is where you clearly miss the point so many have tried to get through to you. OUT OF CHARACTER MATTERS! You cant take a feat, get a cohort and a bunch of followers, demand their share of treasure and expect the other PLAYERS to be happy about this.
No amount of in character justification will make you anything else then a total douchebag if you try to do this.
You want a cohort? Fine, then make up a background story and in game motivation for why he would follow you around without getting a share of the treasure. If you refuse to do that because "the cohort would get angry" then you are just being a jerk. The cohort is not a real person like the other players sitting around the table. The cohort doesn't "get angry" unless you create him that way, which means it's just YOU who wants more treasure.
Then don't whine and complain when that cohort does nothing to help you, no healing, no buffs etc..
@ LowRoller : read the title please, this topic is about in character reasons to deny a share of treasure for the cohort. Moreover, in the games I play, the cohort is most often controlled alternatively by the player and the DM (depending on situations).
@ Gustavo Iglesias : ouah, RPG seem really fun at your table ! I would pay to be here when one of the guys you play with invites his cousin for a one-night session at your table.
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !! Now we are too numerous, we can't sleep in Rope Trick or teleport all with one spell. And there is no way I reduce my share of treasure for a guy who will just come once, it's gonna ruin my character wealth progression ..."
And in my opinion, Alfred is not Batman's cohort, he is his 1st follower. Robin is Batman's cohort, you would refuse Robin to come with you because he is not as strong as Batman ?
@ LowRoller : read the title please, this topic is about in character reasons to deny a share of treasure for the cohort. Moreover, in the games I play, the cohort is most often controlled alternatively by the player and the DM (depending on situations).
@ Gustavo Iglesias : ouah, RPG seem really fun at your table ! I would pay to be here when one of the guys you play with invites his cousin for a one-night session at your table.
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !! Now we are too numerous, we can't sleep in Rope Trick or teleport all with one spell. And there is no way I reduce my share of treasure for a guy who will just come once, it's gonna ruin my character wealth progression ..."
And in my opinion, Alfred is not Batman's cohort, he is his 1st follower. Robin is Batman's cohort, you would refuse Robin to come with you because he is not as strong as Batman ?
Alfred is NOT 1st level. He is a follower though, or perhaps a retired cohort.
Shared experiences bring people close in real life...that is why small elite special operations teams in the military are so tight. They share the same miseries in training, the same pain on the battlefied, the same fear at night. In real life, I think even the knights squire would become an accepted member of the party, by virtue of shared experiences. At some point, when he/she/it behaves as a team-member in equal standing, he/she/it would be treated as a team-member in equal standing.
In my campaigns cohorts remain at least partially under the GM's control...alignment and back story have a lot to do with those actions though. Ex: A knights squire would not let his lords teamate, partner, and friend die alone and unattended, for the sake of his lord he'd help his friend. If the GM has to drop a little more treasure, or make sure some of that treasure is suited to the cohorts "job"...so be it.
Some of the arguments I read centered on a "player", not a character...which is telling. Something about one player getting two shares of treasure.
A group in which players (err characters) start demanding payments for each spell cast or feat used would be no fun, but then again, a group of players which fails to reward worthy behavior wouldn't be much fun either.
They are a student of the all powerful monk, they are not yet ready for all this loot.
:P
@ Gustavo Iglesias : ouah, RPG seem really fun at your table ! I would pay to be here when one of the guys you play with invites his cousin for a one-night session at your table.
He is a player. Totally different thing
And in my opinion, Alfred is not Batman's cohort, he is his 1st follower. Robin is Batman's cohort, you would refuse Robin to come with you because he is not as strong as Batman ?
Not all cohorts are combat cohorts. You can have a cohort which is a sage, and help you with knowledge rolls, or craft magic items, and never comes to battle.
Anyways, it is irrelevant if it is a cohort or a follower. If you use the "NPC don't have a label" point of view, then NPC don't have a label that say they are followers either.
So, to all the people saying that the cohort has right to go to the combat, and get gold, because he is a living and breathing character, without a NPC label over their head, I ask you AGAIN... what if I bring my followers then?
Ok, you bring your Robin Sidekick, and you want him to be paid like a party member. Because you refuse to give him a squire or apprentice background, you decide that he is your best friend, brother in arms, and as he has personality, and is a living person without a label, he should be treated like that. Ok, I'll buy that. But now, I took Leadership too. My cohort is actually a wizard with all the magic crafting feats, and he'll not come to the battle and will not take treasure, no problem with him. BUT MY FOLLOWERS WILL COME. All of them. And I have 55, most of them lvl 1. And they are my friends, all of them. Sure, they could be my hirelings... if I chose so. But it happens that I don't like that. I refuse to give them a background like squire, hirelings, or other background that mean they follow me without receiving a share. They are all of them my friends, just like your cohort. Well, they are a bit more sucky, but that doesn't matter, as they don't have a label that say so. So instead of dividing the threasure by 6 (5 players plus your cohort), we'll divide the treasure by 56 (5 player, your cohort, and my 50 lvl 1 followers that I got from Leadership).
Do you still agree with that?
They are all of them my friends, just like your cohort. Well, they are a bit more sucky, but that doesn't matter, as they don't have a label that say so. So instead of dividing the threasure by 6 (5 players plus your cohort), we'll divide the treasure by 56 (5 player, your cohort, and my 50 lvl 1 followers that I got from Leadership).
Do you still agree with that?
Sounds legit if the DM allows it....
If it's some standard dungeon crawl... then I don't think a DM would stand for sending 56 people down into the 20 x 20 room...
Most DM's seem to get frustrated by all the Animal companion/summoning creatures that drag the combat out...
However, what if your a pirate captain? You captain a fully loaded ship of 3 PCs and 30-40 sailors?
Do you only split the bounty between the PCs? or do all the pirates get a cut?
I ran a smuggler in a star wars game and we absolutely paid the crew. It's how you stop mutinies.
They are all of them my friends, just like your cohort. Well, they are a bit more sucky, but that doesn't matter, as they don't have a label that say so. So instead of dividing the threasure by 6 (5 players plus your cohort), we'll divide the treasure by 56 (5 player, your cohort, and my 50 lvl 1 followers that I got from Leadership).
Do you still agree with that?
Sounds legit if the DM allows it....
If it's some standard dungeon crawl... then I don't think a DM would stand for sending 56 people down into the 20 x 20 room...
Most DM's seem to get frustrated by all the Animal companion/summoning creatures that drag the combat out...
Wait... so there are Out of Game considerations that should be thought about before deciding to bring NPC to combat and split treasure? Fine, I'll buy that. Then let's go back to the cohort getting a share of the treasure.
However, what if your a pirate captain? You captain a fully loaded ship of 3 PCs and 30-40 sailors?
Do you only split the bounty between the PCs? or do all the pirates get a cut?
I ran a smuggler in a star wars game and we absolutely paid the crew. It's how you stop mutinies.
Sailors would get paid, but don't get paid in the same amount as the officials.
In my current campaign, 3 of the 6 players have leadership. We don't use cohorts, they get leadership for the cohorts (it's an evil campaign, they wanted to have their minions and evil organization stuff, like acolytes, thieves guilds, etc). Minions get paid, 10g per month each, and 100g per month for the higher level NPC (which is average and comfortable living cost, respectively). But they don't get a share of the treasure, except the ocassional "hand me down" extra magic item that no one needs to the "cohort level" NPC (which aren't PC controlled, nor specially loyal to a PC, or part of a feat).
They are all of them my friends, just like your cohort. Well, they are a bit more sucky, but that doesn't matter, as they don't have a label that say so. So instead of dividing the threasure by 6 (5 players plus your cohort), we'll divide the treasure by 56 (5 player, your cohort, and my 50 lvl 1 followers that I got from Leadership).
Do you still agree with that?
Sounds legit if the DM allows it....
If it's some standard dungeon crawl... then I don't think a DM would stand for sending 56 people down into the 20 x 20 room...
Most DM's seem to get frustrated by all the Animal companion/summoning creatures that drag the combat out...
However, what if your a pirate captain? You captain a fully loaded ship of 3 PCs and 30-40 sailors?
Do you only split the bounty between the PCs? or do all the pirates get a cut?
I ran a smuggler in a star wars game and we absolutely paid the crew. It's how you stop mutinies.
Pirates dont get an EVEN cut tho.
Crew? In star wars?? how big was your ship? you didnt just crew it with the PCs?
Thats a big ship!
Pirates dont get an EVEN cut tho.
Crew? In star wars?? how big was your ship? you didnt just crew it with the PCs?
Thats a big ship!
Our ship had about 3-4 PCs and 2-3 npcs. Captain got 2 shares, Ship itself got 1 share, everyone else got a single share.
of course, Star Wars as much a 'money' game as Pathfinder is.
I agree that Pirate Crew wouldn't get a share any equal with the 'officers', but they probably wouldn't have been paid on a 'weekly' basis either. The whole idea of pirating is all about the fat loot you score from the ships you pillage. The thread was talking about cohorts NOT getting a share... I absolutely think they should. Unless you bring them on as hirelings using the '1-3gp per day' that's listed. That's cool too. As long as they're compensated somehow for whatever they signed on for...
The goal is for EVERYONE to make money... not JUST the officers. Otherwise you'd have pirate crew wandering the ocean just a hoping that today they came across NOBODY ;)
In the games I play in we handle this case by case.
For example most of the time I have cohorts those cohorts are doing something else while I am adventuring. IE taking care of bussiness or on separte missions. So normaly they obviously don't get a share as the don't go on the adventure. Now the occasional time they do come along on a adventure they usualy get a equal share...though that depends on the type.
My one cohort that is for intents and purpose is part of the group gets a equal shae...heck and controls my characters share as well( weird PC/ cohort relationship there).
Other cohorts might get a partial share due to being a apprentive/squire/ swearing a oath etc.
One thing though...The GM controls the cohort and how the spend their wealth. So we don't have cohorts buying their PC really expansive 'gifts' and such.
There is no one right way to deal with this...it depends on how the players feel out of game and what the in game make sense.
@ gustavo iglesias :
Yes, if your followers are doing a significant part of the job, they deserve a share of the pay.
Myself, I play a fighter rogue who is the leader of a mercenary company (leadership feat + followers and hirelings). If you want my character to help you from some dungeon crawl, you will just have to pay my PC but I can swear you that if you want to hire my mercenaries to run a war, you will have to pay my PC and all his mercenaries.
But keep in mind gustavo that when I mean a significant part of the job, that means that being a torch bearer or a cook is not enough. If your followers take the same risks that my PC, they will deserve to be paid (but they most likely won't because their chances of survive are microscopic).
In my opinion, a cohort that comes with the PCs and fight with them deserves a half share, as I already said. If the cohort just stay at the tavern to craft or simply doesn't fight, no pay for him. By the way, if your PC just stay behind and doesn't help the party in any way, don't count me me to give you a share ...
This is one of those fields where I'm kinda lucky to have a mostly outstanding group of gamers. Skipping the boring irrelevat stuff it usually boils down to.
1. the cohort is a loved one of the character and is ok with sharing the gold of the character.
2. the cohort is in a life dept to the character and thus does not demand money.
3. the cohort just kinda doesn't care about the money and is there for the excitement of the adventure.
Oddly enough this feat is almost never taken when playing evil campaigns.
|
Not sure if this possibility has come up yet since i'm unwilling to read all 5 pages but...
Take a magical beast or animal as a cohort. As it levels with you, it takes levels in fighter, rogue, or some other class you find appropriate.
All the animal will want from you is protection, attention, respect, and above all else to be well-fed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem here is the desire to look at the problem in an IC vacuum, with nothing else considered. While this might seem to be the best or most pure way to look at the issue, it's also a complete fallicy.
This is a game people played with people who willfully suspend a lot of disbelief in order to have some fun together. But this suspension of disbelief does not equal moral get out of jail free card in terms of how "in character" effects "out of character." As PFS puts it, "It's what my character would do" is not an acceptable excuse to being a jerk.
This, absolutely this. There is no objectively right or wrong way to deal with the question of whether a cohort should get an extra share.
Rather the players and GM should discuss the situation and when they decide on the answer (e.g. he gets an equal share / he gets a lesser share / he gets no share) and any conditions (he gets no share but he will be looking out for his leader first and foremost / he gets a share but then so does my animal companion) then come up with an in character reason why that is the case.
If the player whose character has the Leadership feat gets to play their cohort as a second character some players will feel the benefit of getting extra "screen time" should be at the cost of equipping both PCs out of a single share of loot. Meanwhile other groups will be happy to split the loot equally, especially if the cohort is played by the GM. It all comes down to how that group feels.
TL;DR - this is a time when metagaming is a good thing, decide how to split loot out of game, and the come up with an in game reason for the decision.
Not sure if this possibility has come up yet since i'm unwilling to read all 5 pages but...
Take a magical beast or animal as a cohort. As it levels with you, it takes levels in fighter, rogue, or some other class you find appropriate.
All the animal will want from you is protection, attention, respect, and above all else to be well-fed.
And your animal or beast will be sitting there doing nothing, because all the monsters have DR/something and they can't get past that. Or if they do get into combat, they get slaughtered because they still have AC below 20.
The problem I have with this is that a player has made a character choice (a feat) that now asks me to take less treasure. Even if I benefit from this, say healing, I'm sorry but that is not going to happen. Pay for them out of your own share would be my response.
What if the GM is handling out more treasure to account for the cohort? Example with a party of 4 players with on cohort instead of giving out 4,000gp he gives out 5,000gp?
|
|
Way I see it, the party of seasoned adventurers accepts to include a weaker newcomer who has not yet proven his loyalty and reliability (ie, the cohort) as a courtesy to one of them (ie, the PC who took Leadership).
The rest of the party is indeed taking a very big risk when doing this. They are putting their lives in the hands of an unknown person just on one of their old allies' say-so.
Asking them to provide for the cohort in addition to this risk-taking could definitely be seen as asking for too much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In our games, cohorts usually get leftovers and items handed down to them after a character upgrades their item. Our group generally would prefer someone (even a cohort) use an item we found rather than liquidate it to split the cash.
The in game reasons for not getting a full equal share of the loot or first pick is because they are subordinate to their leader. However, if we find a ring of protection +4 or something and no primary character needs it, we see if it is an upgrade for any of the cohorts, familiars, or animal companions in the group.
Also, NPCs or DMPCs are considered primary members in our groups (we usually have 3-5 people total, including the DM).
I dunno, I guess my group is just more interested in participating in the story than worrying about who has 10% more of the group's combined loot than the rest of the group. Half of the time when we get an item that 2 or more people can use, the discussion/argument is about trying to convince one of the players to take the item instead of your character. We usually feel like carrying all of the expensive trash we loot in a dungeon only to sell it at the first opportunity is a necessary mechanic and annoyance more than anything. Imagine if Frodo and Aragorn stopped to pick up every single shiny item they found and used every trick in the book to take their haul just to sell it at Minis Tirith so they could buy Glamdring at the local "magic item shoppe". Kinda ruins the whole immersion thing for us...
Anyway, sorry for the tangent. I guess I didn't think about it like this before, but we typically treat equipping cohorts just as we would familiars or animal companions. They don't get a specific share of the loot, but they get far more than it looks like most groups would allow :)
When you build a character you come up with a backstory as to why he adventures.
When the DM builds an NPC he comes up with a backstory as to why the NPC is who he is.
----------------------------
Why then is it a great leap for people that the Player and DM set down and write a backstory as to why the cohort doesnt get a share of the loot and instead is given gear from the players share?
On a side note: Is it fair if the Cohort gets an even share? Well thats up to the group. The DM just hands out the loot. The group should decide where it goes. If everyone at the table is ok with the cohort getting that +1 Breastplate cause noone wants it they whats the big deal? If party members do care... then the player with Leadership should have that backstory ready to go.
Honestly sometimes I think Teamwork/Communication is becoming a lost art.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the only game that I played that allowed Leadership (and Allied Cohort and Squire), any player that took the feat was in charge of giving the cohort his hand-me-downs and loot for equipping. The loot splitting was between the PCs, and cohorts were paid with the PC's cut.
Occasionally, if there was an item that no PC needed anymore, the cohort might get it instead of it going to the merchant.
*shrug* Worked for us. I don't see any reason to do otherwise.
In game, I've said my peace.
Out of game, if I were a player who gave up a feat that I could have used to help only myself like Toughness or Improved Init, but instead took the feat to help the entire party equally. AND this feat would get worse for me every time it "died", yet I was the only one paying any sort of price, I'd be mad.
If the other players refused to help my cohort then it would refuse to help them.
|
|
And your animal or beast will be sitting there doing nothing, because all the monsters have DR/something and they can't get past that. Or if they do get into combat, they get slaughtered because they still have AC below 20.Not sure if this possibility has come up yet since i'm unwilling to read all 5 pages but...
Take a magical beast or animal as a cohort. As it levels with you, it takes levels in fighter, rogue, or some other class you find appropriate.
All the animal will want from you is protection, attention, respect, and above all else to be well-fed.
Right. put your 5th level fighter with a 15 PB against my Blink Dog Fighter 1 with +1 Mithral Breastplate barding... not saying the blink dog will win, but he's got 29 AC, and a bite with P/B/S, constant blink and dimension door at will, and he's level 5...
Round 1, fight.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In game, I've said my peace.
Out of game, if I were a player who gave up a feat that I could have used to help only myself like Toughness or Improved Init, but instead took the feat to help the entire party equally. AND this feat would get worse for me every time it "died", yet I was the only one paying any sort of price, I'd be mad.
Fine, then get Toughness and everybody is happy.
I take power attack, without anyone telling me if it is right or wrong to use it. However, if when using power attack, other players get a penalty to hit, I'd understand that they complain about my feat. That's the problem with your use of Leadership, it has an impact on other players.
You are pretending to take unilaterally a feat that affects everybody in the table, and then everybody else accept your conditions. That doesn't work that way. If all the table is OK with your cohort before you take the feat, or the whole group has decided they want a cohort, it's perfectly OK that he get paid. If YOU have decided that YOU want a cohort, you shouldn't be forcing everyone else to play a certain way just because YOU want a cohort. I didn't force you to take a certain feat, you shouldn't force me to pay for it.
On the other hand: I took a lot of feats that help the group. I took spell specialist in Dispel Magic to be able to better dispel spells that affect the group, and I don't ask for an extra share of the loot for it. I took Craft Woundreous Item and I don't take a fee for the group when I craft magic items for them. I took skill focus Disable Device, which help the whole group with traps, and I don't get extra gold for that. I still fail to see what makes Leadership a feat everybody has to pay for it, because several feats help the whole group.
As a player and PC the cohort is not my responsibility so I am under no obligation to give him anything, but if I find him/her useful, I will do that I can to keep him alive, even if it means donating money.