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.
Since you're so concerned about penalties to yourself, how would you feel about a "Power Attack" feat in which your allies get the +dmg and you take the -atk. I bet you'd feel that was unfair. If you took the feat only for your benefit, but your allies wanted to use it, giving you the negative, how'd that sit with you?
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.
You don't have to benefit directly from the Cohort. You don't get a direct benefit from someone else's Toughness feat and this doesn't have to be any different. If you want to benefit directly from someone else's feat, (Note, I said directly) then you should have some kind of balance.
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.
When you craft for someone else, do you pay half the cost, or do they pay half the cost? I bet you wouldn't take that feat if when you craft for yourself you pay, and when you craft for someone else, you pay.
If that's the representative transcript of the session, than the GM handled it poorly from the get go. He inflicted an NPC on the party instead of the party hiring a new member via roleplaying. He compounded his mistake by not having the NPC make at least some form of informal agreement regarding treasure and shares. Heck if I'm signing up as a mercenary, I'd expect terms to be laid out BEFORE we start, not after the job's been done!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 leaders
You obviously either missed the point I was trying to make, didn't understand it, or are purposely trying to troll. If you missed it or didn't understand it I'll simplify it for you.
The point is that the PLAYER who takes the cohort needs to communicate with the party about how to split the loot with said cohort. My example was just an extreme with what players would think if a GM tossed a greedy DMPC into the group with them. The party didn't ask for this DMPC and they didn't agree to give him a share of the loot beforehand. This is the same thing as if a singular PC takes the leadership feat and then that cohort suddenly does the same thing as the fictional DMPC.
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.Since you're so concerned about penalties to yourself, how would you feel about a "Power Attack" feat in which your allies get the +dmg and you take the -atk. I bet you'd feel that was unfair. If you took the feat only for your benefit, but your allies wanted to use it, giving you the negative, how'd that sit with you?
I would take a power attack feat that benefit all my teammates in a heartbeat.
|
A. Before taking such a feat, talk it over with your group to find out how its going to be handled.
B. It's a game, breath. The gold pieces aren't real, and neither is that Holy Vorpal Avenger of Thundering. Have some fun.
C. I'm with Gustavo, I'd TOTALLY take that version of Power Attack. The groups half orc Barbarian would be nigh unstoppable...
D. I'd have the cohort/follower/whatever cover MY backside first and foremost if its coming out of my pocket. If the rest of the group is kicking in then I'd let him share the love with them.
E. I think what I'd do is make each follower different depending on their abilities and contribution level. Maybe that rogue who was stealing from the party was being paid for out of your own pocket, but he made cash for you and himself through his skills and got some on the job training. In the same fashion, Lance the Cleric comes along and offers his services to you AND your companions, for a meager share of the spoils...
Or just let them be your trap finders...
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.
But then your cohort is getting part of the loot, which by your posting was that it didn't need part of the loot. So does my Fighter 5 also get the nearly 10,000 gp worth of equipment too?
How did you get the AC up so high?
|
But then your cohort is getting part of the loot, which by your posting was that it didn't need part of the loot. So does my Fighter 5 also get the nearly 10,000 gp worth of equipment too?
How did you get the AC up so high?
Ya, you have to take into consideration that your cohort needs to survive if he is to be viable in combat. That means that you've gotta give him something. As a player, takking a 1/x hit to your party loot because your cohort joins isn't as bad as you taking no hit and your cohort getting nothing. Your cohort will just keep dying if you don't equip it with anything, and your leadership score will suffer because of it. So either keep replacing your cohort with stronger monsters who won't demand loot, or keep one and give it treats every once in a while to make it survivable. In this case, barding for a blink dog would be a sound investment to pump his AC up.
|
|
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.
First, taking Toughness and Improved Initiative also helps the whole party since it makes your character better at defeating threats to the whole party (it's a collaborative game, remember).
Second, taking Leadership does not help the entire party equally, unless you are in the very rare case where any player can choose what the cohort does and the cohort will consider all demands from the PCs, not favoring the PC with the Leadership feat. In most cases I know, the PC with the feat is the cohort's boss, not the whole party.
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.
This can be understood and is the reason why the matter of the cohort's share should be discussed OOC beforehand. And it has to be OOC because "I'd be mad" is OOC.
If the other players refused to help my cohort then it would refuse to help them.
If the cohort asks for something the other players (or PCs) think is extravagant and he would not take no for an answer, then the other PCs just might send the cohort away or even kill him, which will make your feat even less useful. Are you really keen on going this way ?
Alternately, the other PCs could also refuse to help the cohort (and maybe its boss) in any way. It's a dangerous and lonely world out there though.
Aha, now I get why Frodo split from the fellowship. They would not let Sam have Anduril.
This has come up in several of the games I play in where people have started to take Leadership. Note: I’m not interested in how your group bans Leadership or how you, personally, don’t like it.
In each case there is a disagreement about whether the cohort should get an equal share of the treasure, or only get a cut from his Leader.
I understand the out of game reasons why wealth wouldn't be split evenly, one player getting two shares, etc. I can see that point of view. In game though, the cohort is his own person. He risks his life the same as the rest of the party. He may contribute as much to combat as, if not more than, other party members.
The fact that he’s the “secondary” is purely out of game mechanics. You hire the Bashem Brothers, who’s the Leader and who’s the “Cohort”.
I could see not paying the cohort if he only ever helps his Leader, but if he helps everyone, takes the same risks as everyone, takes a share of the watch like everyone, then why shouldn’t he be paid like everyone?
The problem is we are trying to use 21st century logic to solve a problem that doesn't exist in the 21st century.
If you are on your computer using this site you PROBABLY don't! in a place where slaves, servants, cohorts or or other people who have different rights exist.
We used to have these things, but we decided that it was unfair of us to treat them so poorly, so we got rid of them.
Pathfinder is reminiscent of a time when slaves and cohorts existed and these people did not have equal rights. Cohorts in particular (for lack of a better term) 'enslaved' themselves to you of their own free will in order to bask in your leadership and receive whatever gifts you decided to throw them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has come up in several of the games I play in where people have started to take Leadership. Note: I’m not interested in how your group bans Leadership or how you, personally, don’t like it.
In each case there is a disagreement about whether the cohort should get an equal share of the treasure, or only get a cut from his Leader.
I understand the out of game reasons why wealth wouldn't be split evenly, one player getting two shares, etc. I can see that point of view. In game though, the cohort is his own person. He risks his life the same as the rest of the party. He may contribute as much to combat as, if not more than, other party members.
The fact that he’s the “secondary” is purely out of game mechanics. You hire the Bashem Brothers, who’s the Leader and who’s the “Cohort”.
I could see not paying the cohort if he only ever helps his Leader, but if he helps everyone, takes the same risks as everyone, takes a share of the watch like everyone, then why shouldn’t he be paid like everyone?
The answer to this question is right in the mechanic.
"Cohort" is indeed and NPC, however he isn't just a random person in the world, he is one specifically design to meet several criteria:
He is attracted to follow and help without wage or share of treasure a specific member of the party. That's exactly who the Leadership feat gives you. You do need to pay for upkeep, like you do with a stabling a mount, and you get bonuses if you treat your cohorts and followers well.
He doesn't work for the party and the cohort will tell you that if PC X left the group he'd need a wage to keep working with them (ie become a hireling in the event of his leader's death), and in fact if the Leader left the group the cohort would leave with him.
These mechanical realities restricts the concepts available for cohorts and range of pf their character motives.
We are not talking about just having an NPC join the group, we are talking about a specific type of NPC that as defined by the reason he is even there in the first place (the leadership feat) doesn't need reward beyond basic care.
Also if you can't tell who is the cohort then you don't have a leader/cohort relationship so your question about which person a cohort is misdirecting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer to this question is right in the mechanic."Cohort" is indeed and NPC, however he isn't just a random person in the world, he is one specifically design to meet several criteria:
He is attracted to follow and help without wage or share of treasure a specific member of the party. That's exactly who the Leadership feat gives you. You do need to pay for upkeep, like you do with a stabling a mount, and you get bonuses if you treat your cohorts and followers well.
This actually relates to things other have mentioned before: that if you don't behave with the cohort like you do with another PC, he'll leave.
Actually, by RAW that's not true. If you treat your cohort like a Harry Potter's Slitthering does with his elf, and whip and lash him, insult him, and give him just rags to dress and bread and water to drink, you get a whooping -2 to your leadership score for "cruelty". Which might, or might not, affect your cohort level, and the number of total followers you have.
So not giving your squire, apprentice, or arab-guy-you-saved-his-life-in-the-crusades a full share of the treasure is NOT required by the feat, by RAW.
It is PERFECTLY correct to build a cohort which has a background which implies he doesn't need to get a full split of the treasure. We have provided dozens of examples, from the guy who owe you his life, to a local bard who follow you to write an epic poem about your deeds. You could choose to build a different background on purpose. You could make a cohort that do not follow you, unless he get paid a full share. Hey, you could make your cohort a prince, that ask for the full treasure of the whole party because of his royal status, and it will be perfectly reasonable in-game. However, it's so because you are deciding to impose a tax in other players because of your feat selection, not because the feat ask for it.
Drop the martyr act slade, nobody is buying it. Leadership is a very powerful feat and your "i do it for the team and now they dont want to pay for it" argument is just nonsense. If you dont want the feat then dont take it. If you want the feat then take it but dont expect others to give you extra money for it. I bet nobody asked you to get a cohort.
Have you even read my posts?
1. I'm the GM not the player who took Leadership.
2. I've never said the party should chip in on the cohort when it exists in a vaccuum. I've said that they SHOULD do so when they are getting "free" DIRECT services from the cohort. That's the opposite of martyrdom. That's asking to be paid for work done.
First, taking Toughness and Improved Initiative also helps the whole party since it makes your character better at defeating threats to the whole party (it's a collaborative game, remember).
Indirectly yes. I've never said anyone should pay for the indirect benefits of the Cohort. I don't think anyone else has either.
Second, taking Leadership does not help the entire party equally, unless you are in the very rare case where any player can choose what the cohort does and the cohort will consider all demands from the PCs, not favoring the PC with the Leadership feat. In most cases I know, the PC with the feat is the cohort's boss, not the whole party.
"I refuse to kick in anything to your cohort for saving my life. I never asked him to save my life. Obviously, he should have just let me die. It's his fault he didn't."
This can be understood and is the reason why the matter of the cohort's share should be discussed OOC beforehand. And it has to be OOC because "I'd be mad" is OOC.
Agreed.
If the cohort asks for something the other players (or PCs) think is extravagant and he would not take no for an answer, then the other PCs just might send the cohort away or even kill him, which will make your feat even less useful. Are you really keen on going this way ?
The party could do the same to each other or any NPC. What's your point?
Alternately, the other PCs could also refuse to help the cohort (and maybe its boss) in any way. It's a dangerous and lonely world out there though.
In this "the cohort is your responsibility" mindset I would expect them to, and that's FINE. The party and the cohort never need to help each other in any direct way, and that is a completely fair system, IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2. I've never said the party should chip in on the cohort when it exists in a vaccuum. I've said that they SHOULD do so when they are getting "free" DIRECT services from the cohort. That's the opposite of martyrdom. That's asking to be paid for work done.
Isn't that a question for the players to decide rather than the GM?
Isn't that a question for the players to decide rather than the GM?
2. I've never said the party should chip in on the cohort when it exists in a vaccuum. I've said that they SHOULD do so when they are getting "free" DIRECT services from the cohort. That's the opposite of martyrdom. That's asking to be paid for work done.
I see your confusion.
The players are free to give all the trasure to one PC if they like. I've only been arguing about what is hypothetically fair. I've never meant to say the GM should decide anything.
I like the idea of the cohort being someone who is so in awe of you that they will follow you to the ends of the earth, and do whatever you ask, just for the sake if being in your presence, solves the rules lack of clarification well.
You do not need to provide for him (he will suffer just to be with you), you do not need to be kind, (he will just strive harder to earn your approval), you do not need to consider his needs (he will work to craft you items locked in a tower 16/7 because he knows how much you appreciate it) etc. However, other people will notice and will care. Your followers might realize how cruel you are, and this will effect your leadership ability. He might just die sooner (unequipped in battle, not able to pay for new clothes etc.). An enemy might hear of your crafter left all alone and kidnap him.
Basically: Your actions have consequences. If you treat them well, the consequences can be good, if you treat them badly, the consequences will be bad, regardless of how they act in their capacity as cohort as defined by the rules.
I actually had an issue with my cohort only getting a cut of my gold because everyone saw him as my lackey instead of part of the group, whih bugged me because in the story, he was my best friend/ hetero bromance. After he got killed by a freaking cloudkill spell because his HD were lower and his saves, I ended up just making him a pack mule and rolling a second characterup so I could actually get equal gold.
The metagame "Don't give treasure to the help!" upset me quite a bit, but I'm not one to whine. Still trying to get him resurrected though and the GM is being a butt about it...
Kairos, I think this is a problem of differing expectations. Most people assume that since the cohort is always two levels lower (according to the rules) and an NPC (according to the rules), he/she is in fact not an equal member of the group, but is a lackey.
The gold loss is the payback for having one feat have such an enormous benefit.
The players are free to give all the trasure to one PC if they like. I've only been arguing about what is hypothetically fair. I've never meant to say the GM should decide anything.
And a lot of us out here are players who think it's fair for the leadership PC to provide for the cohort's needs without hitting up his fellow adventurers for an even share. After all, it's his cohort, his responsibility.
It's also fair if the players decide to cut the cohort in.
But is either choice a moral imperative? No.
I find it interesting that the posters here that are generally against the Cohort getting any cut of the loot, almost always use the term "equal share." It seems that they are stuck on the idea of equal share or no share. We just split up some loot in our Kingmaker campaign, the PCs got 13k, the cohort 8 or 9k. That means I gave up 2k worth of treasure. I am not going to miss it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it interesting that the posters here that are generally against the Cohort getting any cut of the loot, almost always use the term "equal share." It seems that they are stuck on the idea of equal share or no share. We just split up some loot in our Kingmaker campaign, the PCs got 13k, the cohort 8 or 9k. That means I gave up 2k worth of treasure. I am not going to miss it.
The problem is that it is a tax on the rest of the PC's in the party when a singular PC takes the leadership feat in order to gain the cohort. That PC gained the cohort and is responsible (financially) for them rather than the party as a whole being responsible for the.
This should be handled by the gaming group though, because everyone has differing opinions on whether or not that cohort should get a "cut" of the whole as an equal partner, a smaller percentage of the whole, or some agreed upon amount from the PC who the Cohort is following.
The contention comes in when the cohort demands a full equal share from the party as a whole. To me, this is a bunch of BS. When I play a cohort I will role-play it out with the GM to come to an agreement on how much my PC will give the cohort as payment per day/week/month as FIXED income along with paying for all of the cohort's daily needs (food/drink/lodging). I don't expect the other PC's to dip into their pockets if they don't want to. If the other PC's are feeling generous, that's awesome, but people shouldn't expect anything more.
When I play a PC who is in a party with another PC who has a cohort, I will suggest giving some used or unneeded items to the cohort if he/she can use them, otherwise I'm not dipping into the loose gold or gems to hand out bonuses to that person's NPC.
This perceived entitlement from an NPC cohort gets my blood boiling a bit when discussing it on the forums because I've never had a cohort demand equal shares (my own cohort or someone else's), nor would I put up with it in a group if someone tried to do it.
I find it interesting that the posters here that are generally against the Cohort getting any cut of the loot, almost always use the term "equal share." It seems that they are stuck on the idea of equal share or no share. We just split up some loot in our Kingmaker campaign, the PCs got 13k, the cohort 8 or 9k. That means I gave up 2k worth of treasure. I am not going to miss it.
Almost same thing on my side. I'm playing Kingmaker too (4 Pcs + 1 healbot cohort + 1 succubus - fiendish boon of the antipaladin) and we are not dividing the loot ; all the stuff is giving to the PC or NPC for whom it's the most fitted, stuff that fits noone is given to minor NPCs or sold. All the money is in a common treasure and is used to buy stuff for members of the party.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cohort is not my responsibility. Will I save his life? Sure. Should he save mine if the risk is not to great to himself? Sure. The reason is that more people makes the party better, but ultimately the cohort is not a member of the party in the truest sense. He works for one particular party member. If he is was a party member then he would stay even if the PC left. Sure the GM can find some way to allow it, but by the rules, the "feat" should leave with the player.
I will put it this way. I am not saying I would never help a cohort with gear. If he is useful I would be more than happy to help out. However I should not feel like I have to give up loot for the cohort no matter what, just because someone else took a feat.
PS:Even in the instance that he is useful I am not splitting treasure with him equally.
Step 1) Get weaker charcter who can help
Step 2) Give loot to help him survive and actually BE helpful...
Step 3) If dies... take back loot.
Doesn't sound like the party is really out MUCH ;)
On a seperate question, Why kind of Cohorts do people see often? My paladin planned on getting a cleric of the same god to follow him around... give religious advice (i.e. DM instructing what does or doesnt' make someone fall) and/or giving an atonement spell if needed... but that cohort didn't happen.
the other one I saw was also a priest of nethys and a 'crafter'.
Both VERY helpful things that are saving money on gear and helping us stay alive... and everyone is benefiting. We have no problem tossing him gear and rings and stuff to keep him alive! Though frankly we do a lot of 'group funds' and try to buy 'bigger' things for people who need it rather than even splits amongst everyone.
But yeah, it seems like crafting and Healing are big ones... what do other people see? Are there a lot of '3rd string' fighters coming off the bench and only keeping rear guard? or are they actually USEFUL?
Phantom
I tend towards wanting high-Cha Rogues -- guys who can run my spy network effectively and who have good Crafting as well as the social skill set (to oversee the poison/drug production facilities). They aren't supposed to end up on the front line, or even the rear guard position; they're supposed to keep my desmenes organized and profitable when I can't be there in my own person.
That's interesting!
Is there a reason you went with a cohort and not just pay an npc? That's kind of why the cleric/paladin didn't happen. We're running kingmaker and out DM told us we would have TONS of npcs to do with as we please... so leadership is a wasted feat.
If he's not a fighter or frontliner... or in your case even traveling with the party... why spend a feat on him?
|
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.
Seems like you've got a misunderstanding of the creature advancement rules.
You don't get to rebuild you apply the following modifiers to stats and that's it(+4,+4,+2,+2,+0,-2).
A first level Blink Dog Fighter with +1 Mithril breastplate barding (5400gp) would have the following statistics.
Sir Blinky the Hairy
1st Level Blink Dog Fighter
Str 16 (12+4)
Dex 19 (15+4)
Con 16 (14+2)
Int 10 (10+0)
Wis 15 (13+2)
Cha 9 (11-2)
AC = 23/14/19 (10 base + 7 armor + 2 natural + 4 dex)
Feats = (Combat Reflexes <- built in, Iron Will <- built in, Dodge)
He has one fighter feat to toss around so spend that on dodge and you've got ac 24.
His attack is a +7 bite that does 1d6+4 and he has 31 hp.
A plain jane 15 point buy great-sword fighter with just boring normal feats and +1 Fullplate +1 Greatsword (5000gp) would look something like this.
Sir Mooky the Porter
5th Level Human Fighter
Str 20 (17+1+2)
Dex 13 (13+0)
Con 14 (14+0)
Int 7 (7+0)
Wis 12 (12+0)
Cha 7 (7+0)
Feats= Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization/Blind Fight/Toughness/Power Attack/Improved Initiative/Dodge
AC = 22/12/20 (10 base + 10 armor + 1 dex + 1 dodge)
His attacks are +13 2d6+11 or PA +11 2d6+17 and he has 54 hp.
Unless I want my cohort to be really good at surviving and not much else I don't really see how a Blink dog is all that useful.
Certainly not enough for you to put a brag post in here about how it'll mess up everyone's humanoid cohorts.
|
|
Unless I want my cohort to be really good at surviving and not much else I don't really see how a Blink dog is all that useful.
Certainly not enough for you to put a brag post in here about how it'll mess up everyone's humanoid cohorts.
Looks like you did your due diligence, and like my stat calculations were off.
Either way, look back at my post you misquoted, I said "not saying the blink dog will win", I'm just saying you can build something that would hold its own that won't inherently be demanding loot. You can't ask for much more in a cohort.
If we look purely at the math of how my DM does encounters, the cohort tookour party from 3 people to 4, which means we can do higher CR encounters and get more rewards. So he had increased the gold and treasure we get and then distribute his share to the whole group. Did not sound fair to me.
A druid or ranger feeds or otherwise provides for its animal companion. A paladin, cavalier or samurai provides similar feed, armor and other necessities for its mount. Why should the cohort be any different from the animal companion or mount? In certain instances, the mount or animal companion can fend for themself as can the cohort (search for their own food, attack, defend... flee if need be). So why should the player who WILLINGLY took the leadership feat be any different from the player who willingly took the class with the animal companion or mount class feature? It's not as if the party, in-part or as a whole, actively went out and looked to hire an NPC. If so, an agreement would have been made at the time of hiring said NPC. In cases of a specific loot (i.e. sword +1 or other magic item) that the player believes would benefit his cohort, let the player roll for it himself, or however such occurrences are handled within your group, and gift it to the cohort if he is able to get it.
Real life application, a squire is to the knight what the cohort is to the player. The squire serves, fights alongside, and otherwise caters to the knight. In return, the knight provides food, clothing, training, experience and the like for the squire. If the knight fails to provide for the squire, the squire might betray the knight for a more advantageous opportunity. Note that not all knights of old came from wealthy families. Some had to scrape by, never knowing where the next meal might come from, especially in times of peace.
A druid or ranger feeds or otherwise provides for its animal companion. A paladin, cavalier or samurai provides similar feed, armor and other necessities for its mount. Why should the cohort be any different from the animal companion or mount? In certain instances, the mount or animal companion can fend for themself as can the cohort (search for their own food, attack, defend... flee if need be). So why should the player who WILLINGLY took the leadership feat be any different from the player who willingly took the class with the animal companion or mount class feature? It's not as if the party, in-part or as a whole, actively went out and looked to hire an NPC. If so, an agreement would have been made at the time of hiring said NPC. In cases of a specific loot (i.e. sword +1 or other magic item) that the player believes would benefit his cohort, let the player roll for it himself, or however such occurrences are handled within your group, and gift it to the cohort if he is able to get it.
Real life application, a squire is to the knight what the cohort is to the player. The squire serves, fights alongside, and otherwise caters to the knight. In return, the knight provides food, clothing, training, experience and the like for the squire. If the knight fails to provide for the squire, the squire might betray the knight for a more advantageous opportunity. Note that not all knights of old came from wealthy families. Some had to scrape by, never knowing where the next meal might come from, especially in times of peace.
It lives...
If my mount costs me, say, 10 gold a ride (in items in such) and YOU want to ride it, you damn right you're gonna pay me 10 gold.
A druid or ranger feeds or otherwise provides for its animal companion. A paladin, cavalier or samurai provides similar feed, armor and other necessities for its mount. Why should the cohort be any different from the animal companion or mount? In certain instances, the mount or animal companion can fend for themself as can the cohort (search for their own food, attack, defend... flee if need be). So why should the player who WILLINGLY took the leadership feat be any different from the player who willingly took the class with the animal companion or mount class feature? It's not as if the party, in-part or as a whole, actively went out and looked to hire an NPC. If so, an agreement would have been made at the time of hiring said NPC. In cases of a specific loot (i.e. sword +1 or other magic item) that the player believes would benefit his cohort, let the player roll for it himself, or however such occurrences are handled within your group, and gift it to the cohort if he is able to get it.
Real life application, a squire is to the knight what the cohort is to the player. The squire serves, fights alongside, and otherwise caters to the knight. In return, the knight provides food, clothing, training, experience and the like for the squire. If the knight fails to provide for the squire, the squire might betray the knight for a more advantageous opportunity. Note that not all knights of old came from wealthy families. Some had to scrape by, never knowing where the next meal might come from, especially in times of peace.
Then do not expect my cohort to cure your injuries, nor buff your characters stats or AC, nor protect you from the raging barbarian that is about to behead you. If I am the only one financially supporting my Cohort, then I shall be the only one that benefits from his presence.
If you wish him to cure you, it will cost you his level times spell level times 10 GP plus any component cost.
Ah, just because I want to ride it, you are still the controller of it. A cohort has entered an arrangement with you, just as the mount or animal companion. It may mutually benefit the party, but in the end, it is YOU that has the "contractual aggreement" with it. Does a ranger make the wizard pay him if the ranger orders his wolf to protect the wizard during a fight? Any benefits the cohort, mount or animal companion provide to the party should come through direct connection of thw "owner" of said creature/person. If the PC the with leadership feat dies, does the cohort have any connection or reason to stay with the PC's now that its liege is gone? Do the PC's keep the cohort if the master of it is dead? NO... same with the maount or animal companion. It's only connection to the party is the PC in control of it. Also, being an intelligent creature, the cohort should consult his "leader" before doing anything for the party that is not in direct benefit of the "leader". If you party has not been playing as such, it's poor handling of the situation(s) by the player in control of the cohort.
If my mount costs me, say, 10 gold a ride (in items in such) and YOU want to ride it, you damn right you're gonna pay me 10 gold.
If you can ride it for free but choose to spend money on it to make it better are you still going to charge me for a ride?
Drop the martyr act slade, nobody is buying it. Leadership is a very powerful feat and your "i do it for the team and now they dont want to pay for it" argument is just nonsense. If you dont want the feat then dont take it. If you want the feat then take it but dont expect others to give you extra money for it. I bet nobody asked you to get a cohort.
This bears repeating.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, just because I want to ride it, you are still the controller of it. A cohort has entered an arrangement with you, just as the mount or animal companion. It may mutually benefit the party, but in the end, it is YOU that has the "contractual aggreement" with it. Does a ranger make the wizard pay him if the ranger orders his wolf to protect the wizard during a fight? Any benefits the cohort, mount or animal companion provide to the party should come through direct connection of thw "owner" of said creature/person. If the PC the with leadership feat dies, does the cohort have any connection or reason to stay with the PC's now that its liege is gone? Do the PC's keep the cohort if the master of it is dead? NO... same with the maount or animal companion. It's only connection to the party is the PC in control of it. Also, being an intelligent creature, the cohort should consult his "leader" before doing anything for the party that is not in direct benefit of the "leader". If you party has not been playing as such, it's poor handling of the situation(s) by the player in control of the cohort.
I can see this now.
Cohort: Hey boss should I haste everyone in the party, or just you and me.
Boss: Hasting us doesn't do a whole lot, since we are spell casters.
Cohort: True enough, so should I cast haste or maybe Protection from Fire on you?
Several rounds later...
Cohort: Hey boss, Steve and Ralph over there are getting their butts kicked, I can get both the fire giants with a lightning bolt, or should I target that one that it throwing rocks at you?
Boss: Whichever, I don't really care.
Cohort: Well since they never gave me anything, I guess they take of those two on their own.
The wrong question has been asked and answered through this entire thread.
The real question should be... should the GM mandate how the party shares it's wealth, or leave it up to the players to work out themselves?
It should always be up to the players.
Drop the martyr act slade, nobody is buying it. Leadership is a very powerful feat and your "i do it for the team and now they dont want to pay for it" argument is just nonsense. If you dont want the feat then dont take it. If you want the feat then take it but dont expect others to give you extra money for it. I bet nobody asked you to get a cohort.This bears repeating.
And no one asked for the Paladins mount, the Druids animal or the Summoners Eidelon, etc...
Ah, just because I want to ride it, you are still the controller of it. A cohort has entered an arrangement with you, just as the mount or animal companion. It may mutually benefit the party, but in the end, it is YOU that has the "contractual aggreement" with it. Does a ranger make the wizard pay him if the ranger orders his wolf to protect the wizard during a fight? Any benefits the cohort, mount or animal companion provide to the party should come through direct connection of thw "owner" of said creature/person. If the PC the with leadership feat dies, does the cohort have any connection or reason to stay with the PC's now that its liege is gone? Do the PC's keep the cohort if the master of it is dead? NO... same with the maount or animal companion. It's only connection to the party is the PC in control of it. Also, being an intelligent creature, the cohort should consult his "leader" before doing anything for the party that is not in direct benefit of the "leader". If you party has not been playing as such, it's poor handling of the situation(s) by the player in control of the cohort.I can see this now.
Cohort: Hey boss should I haste everyone in the party, or just you and me.
Boss: Hasting us doesn't do a whole lot, since we are spell casters.
Cohort: True enough, so should I cast haste or maybe Protection from Fire on you?Several rounds later...
Cohort: Hey boss, Steve and Ralph over there are getting their butts kicked, I can get both the fire giants with a lightning bolt, or should I target that one that it throwing rocks at you?
Boss: Whichever, I don't really care.
Cohort: Well since they never gave me anything, I guess they take of those two on their own.
Fighter: Should I stand in front of the wizard or let the orc hordes roll over him? Well, he and his cohort have been kinda douchy, so I think I'll let the orc hordes murder them horribly.
Yea, good luck with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thread asked for an In game RP reason. Mine is this, if WE hire a cohort, it's OUR job to pay them. If YOU hire a cohort it's YOUR job to pay them. To me it's simple as that. I don't kick in to feed your animal companion or familiar for the same reason...your pet, you feed it.
My out of RP reason Is similar...a feat doesn't entitle you to double loot. Don't like it? Don't take the damn feat.
Drop the martyr act slade, nobody is buying it. Leadership is a very powerful feat and your "i do it for the team and now they dont want to pay for it" argument is just nonsense. If you dont want the feat then dont take it. If you want the feat then take it but dont expect others to give you extra money for it. I bet nobody asked you to get a cohort.This bears repeating.
I again wonder why when this, wrongly, assumes I am talking about me.
The thread asked for an In game RP reason. Mine is this, if WE hire a cohort, it's OUR job to pay them. If YOU hire a cohort it's YOUR job to pay them. To me it's simple as that. I don't kick in to feed your animal companion or familiar for the same reason...your pet, you feed it.
My out of RP reason Is similar...a feat doesn't entitle you to double loot. Don't like it? Don't take the damn feat.
This too. If the group wants to hire someone they don't need a feat.
The thread asked for an In game RP reason. Mine is this, if WE hire a cohort, it's OUR job to pay them. If YOU hire a cohort it's YOUR job to pay them. To me it's simple as that. I don't kick in to feed your animal companion or familiar for the same reason...your pet, you feed it.
My out of RP reason Is similar...a feat doesn't entitle you to double loot. Don't like it? Don't take the damn feat.
That's perfectly fine. My question to you is: Someone takes this feat without asking and uses the cohort to boost only themselves even when it could have boosted everyone. Do you complain?
The thread asked for an In game RP reason. Mine is this, if WE hire a cohort, it's OUR job to pay them. If YOU hire a cohort it's YOUR job to pay them. To me it's simple as that. I don't kick in to feed your animal companion or familiar for the same reason...your pet, you feed it.
My out of RP reason Is similar...a feat doesn't entitle you to double loot. Don't like it? Don't take the damn feat.
And my in game reply to this, is expect to pay the cohort for any assistance he gives your character.
And yet another person assumes that the Cohort would get an equal share of the loot. Why is this?