Nope...don't care. Not my feat.
Also RP wise if its your best friend, or your lover wouldn't they help you first...heck if its your boot licking toady or paid body guard...same result,
In the end it's not much different than refusing to cast a spell or swing your sword though...your going to get away with it for so long and then I am going to treat you like any other mercenary rather than a party member.
Nope...don't care. Not my feat.
Also RP wise if its your best friend, or your lover wouldn't they help you first...heck if its your boot licking toady or paid body guard...same result,
In the end it's not much different than refusing to cast a spell or swing your sword though...your going to get away with it for so long and then I am going to treat you like any other mercenary rather than a party member.
This.
No one complained when the barbarian took the Power Attack feat. Feats, other than teamwork feats, are arguably singularly benefitial to the person taking the feat. The feat may help the party as a whole, by making the single player better.
| 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.
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?
That's fine...when your cohort is in danger, he can pound sand...he is no friend of mine....at best he is a friends hired help. At worst he is the hired help of a guy who is holding the party hostage to pay for his butler.
Nope...don't care. Not my feat.
Also RP wise if its your best friend, or your lover wouldn't they help you first...heck if its your boot licking toady or paid body guard...same result,
In the end it's not much different than refusing to cast a spell or swing your sword though...your going to get away with it for so long and then I am going to treat you like any other mercenary rather than a party member.
But you never were treating the Cohort as a party member.
Nope...don't care. Not my feat.
Also RP wise if its your best friend, or your lover wouldn't they help you first...heck if its your boot licking toady or paid body guard...same result,
In the end it's not much different than refusing to cast a spell or swing your sword though...your going to get away with it for so long and then I am going to treat you like any other mercenary rather than a party member.
First you say you don't care, then you say you'll treat them differently.
Besides isn't a cohort "any other mercenary"?
I don't see how those are mutually exclusive. I don't care what your hired help does...I do care what party members do. Doesn't seem that complicated,
But you never were treating the Cohort as a party member.Nope...don't care. Not my feat.
Also RP wise if its your best friend, or your lover wouldn't they help you first...heck if its your boot licking toady or paid body guard...same result,
In the end it's not much different than refusing to cast a spell or swing your sword though...your going to get away with it for so long and then I am going to treat you like any other mercenary rather than a party member.
Agreed...because they aren't. They are the hired help of a party member.
First: The cohort is LOYAL to the person who took the leadership feat.
Second: "A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP." (cited Core Rulebook p. 129) So why should he count as a party member when determining loot?
Third: Does the party complain when the druid's animal companion only aids the druid?
Nope...don't care. Not my feat.
Also RP wise if its your best friend, or your lover wouldn't they help you first...heck if its your boot licking toady or paid body guard...same result,
In the end it's not much different than refusing to cast a spell or swing your sword though...your going to get away with it for so long and then I am going to treat you like any other mercenary rather than a party member.
First you say you don't care, then you say you'll treat them differently.
Besides isn't a cohort "any other mercenary"?
Wait I think I see the disconnect. I am not judging the cohort but his boss...the party member to be a mercenary. He hired help of his own volition and than refuses to use it for the betterment of the party without extra pay....he is a mercenary.
First: The cohort is LOYAL to the person who took the leadership feat.
And?
Second: "A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP." (cited Core Rulebook p. 129) So why should he count as a party member when determining loot?
A. It specifically calls out XP and not loot.
Which leads to
B. The party can decide to split up loot however they want.
Third: Does the party complain when the druid's animal companion only aids the druid?
I don't know. Do they?
Agreed...because they aren't. They are the hired help of a party member.But you never were treating the Cohort as a party member.Nope...don't care. Not my feat.
Also RP wise if its your best friend, or your lover wouldn't they help you first...heck if its your boot licking toady or paid body guard...same result,
In the end it's not much different than refusing to cast a spell or swing your sword though...your going to get away with it for so long and then I am going to treat you like any other mercenary rather than a party member.
And on that basis, expect to pay for any benefit you gain from the Cohort. If you are unwilling to pay, don't expect anything from the Cohort. Because I would have my Cohort move out of flanking positioning, not cast cure spells, exclude you from beneficial spells, and otherwise do my best to make sure that your character, and any others with the same attitude, receive as close to no benefit from my Cohort as possible.
First: The cohort is LOYAL to the person who took the leadership feat.
Second: "A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP." (cited Core Rulebook p. 129) So why should he count as a party member when determining loot?
Third: Does the party complain when the druid's animal companion only aids the druid?
I've never seen an AC only aid the the Druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed...because they aren't. They are the hired help of a party member.But you never were treating the Cohort as a party member.Nope...don't care. Not my feat.
Also RP wise if its your best friend, or your lover wouldn't they help you first...heck if its your boot licking toady or paid body guard...same result,
In the end it's not much different than refusing to cast a spell or swing your sword though...your going to get away with it for so long and then I am going to treat you like any other mercenary rather than a party member.
And on that basis, expect to pay for any benefit you gain from the Cohort. If you are unwilling to pay, don't expect anything from the Cohort. Because I would have my Cohort move out of flanking positioning, not cast cure spells, exclude you from beneficial spells, and otherwise do my best to make sure that your character, and any others with the same attitude, receive as close to no benefit from my Cohort as possible.
Then expect to be kicked from the party like a fighter who won't swing his sword, a wizard who won't cast spells, or a rogue who refuses to disarm unless you are paid an extra share. Again you bought the damn dog...you feed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait I think I see the disconnect. I am not judging the cohort but his boss...the party member to be a mercenary. He hired help of his own volition and than refuses to use it for the betterment of the party without extra pay....he is a mercenary.
So, to follow your logic, if a player takes Weapon Focus, which only directly benefits him, A-OK.
If a player takes a Cohort which only directly benefits him, jerkwad?
I don't follow that. The Cohort still soaks up hits for the party. The Cohort still directly benefits his Leader which indirectly benefits the party. Sounds to me like your getting all the help you deserve. If you want more and it costs that player money (vis-a-vis gear) then you need to chip in to get the same benefits the Leader gets beyond the benefits everyone gets.
Wait I think I see the disconnect. I am not judging the cohort but his boss...the party member to be a mercenary. He hired help of his own volition and than refuses to use it for the betterment of the party without extra pay....he is a mercenary.So, to follow your logic, if a player takes Weapon Focus, which only directly benefits him, A-OK.
If a player takes a Cohort which only directly benefits him, jerkwad?
I don't follow that. The Cohort still soaks up hits for the party. The Cohort still directly benefits his Leader which indirectly benefits the party. Sounds to me like your getting all the help you deserve. If you want more and it costs that player money (vis-a-vis gear) then you need to chip in to get the same benefits the Leader gets beyond the benefits everyone gets.
Nope a player who takes weapon focus and says I won't use my sword unless you pay more is a jerk wad.
If you are working for a company and hire a guy all on your own to type all your emails...does the company have to kick in more pay for you to support the fact you hired a contractor to do part of your job? no.
Your cohort was your decision to bring on board...this is not a company hire..this is you subletting.
Then expect to be kicked from the party like a fighter who won't swing his sword, a wizard who won't cast spells, or a rogue who refuses to disarm unless you are paid an extra share. Again you bought the damn dog...you feed it.Agreed...because they aren't. They are the hired help of a party member.But you never were treating the Cohort as a party member.Nope...don't care. Not my feat.
Also RP wise if its your best friend, or your lover wouldn't they help you first...heck if its your boot licking toady or paid body guard...same result,
In the end it's not much different than refusing to cast a spell or swing your sword though...your going to get away with it for so long and then I am going to treat you like any other mercenary rather than a party member.
And on that basis, expect to pay for any benefit you gain from the Cohort. If you are unwilling to pay, don't expect anything from the Cohort. Because I would have my Cohort move out of flanking positioning, not cast cure spells, exclude you from beneficial spells, and otherwise do my best to make sure that your character, and any others with the same attitude, receive as close to no benefit from my Cohort as possible.
WOW!! I am talking about the actions of the COHORT, not my PC. You have stated repeatedly that you don't want the Cohort, so just like my Weapon Focus Feat, my Leadership Feat will benefit just me. My Cohort will help me, buff me, heal me whatever, he just won't help you. The same way my Weapon Focus Feat doesn't help you. Or your Blind Fight Feat doesn't help me. I won't ask you for any extra portion of the treasure, you don't ask for any assistance from MY Cohort.
I've never seen an AC only aid the the Druid.First: The cohort is LOYAL to the person who took the leadership feat.
Second: "A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP." (cited Core Rulebook p. 129) So why should he count as a party member when determining loot?
Third: Does the party complain when the druid's animal companion only aids the druid?
But do you pay the druid extra for its animal companion?
But do you pay the druid extra for its animal companion?I've never seen an AC only aid the the Druid.First: The cohort is LOYAL to the person who took the leadership feat.
Second: "A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP." (cited Core Rulebook p. 129) So why should he count as a party member when determining loot?
Third: Does the party complain when the druid's animal companion only aids the druid?
Haven't played with a Pathfinder Druid, in previous editions we did give the AC appropriate magic items we had found.
This is a collaborative game. If you or your cohort don't play nice neither will be invited back. In game and out.
Nope a player who takes weapon focus and says I won't use my sword unless you pay more is a jerk wad.If you are working for a company and hire a guy all on your own to type all your emails...does the company have to kick in more pay for you to support the fact you hired a contractor to do part of your job? no.
Your cohort was your decision to bring on board...this is not a company hire..this is you subletting.
Your analogy is perfect. If I hire a guy to write my emails he writes MY emails. You want someone to write YOUR emails you better hire your own guy.
Or you can use my guy too, and pay for it. You are not getting for free, what I pay for.
WOW!! I am talking about the actions of the COHORT, not my PC. You have stated repeatedly that you don't want the Cohort, so just like my Weapon Focus Feat, my Leadership Feat will benefit just me. My Cohort will help me, buff me, heal me whatever, he just won't help you. The same way my Weapon Focus Feat doesn't help you. Or your Blind Fight Feat doesn't help me. I won't ask you for any extra portion of the treasure, you don't ask for any assistance from MY Cohort.Then expect to be kicked from the party like a fighter who won't swing his sword, a wizard who won't cast spells, or a rogue who refuses to disarm unless you are paid an extra share. Again you bought the damn dog...you feed it.Agreed...because they aren't. They are the hired help of a party member.But you never were treating the Cohort as a party member.Nope...don't care. Not my feat.
Also RP wise if its your best friend, or your lover wouldn't they help you first...heck if its your boot licking toady or paid body guard...same result,
In the end it's not much different than refusing to cast a spell or swing your sword though...your going to get away with it for so long and then I am going to treat you like any other mercenary rather than a party member.
And on that basis, expect to pay for any benefit you gain from the Cohort. If you are unwilling to pay, don't expect anything from the Cohort. Because I would have my Cohort move out of flanking positioning, not cast cure spells, exclude you from beneficial spells, and otherwise do my best to make sure that your character, and any others with the same attitude, receive as close to no benefit from my Cohort as possible.
If you don't see how using the full extent of your abilities and resources in combat is the reason the party gives you your share of the loot your either being deliberately obtuse or just ignoring my reason because you have an agenda. I simply supplied for the sake of argument my belief. If you came to my table and demanded an extra cut for your feat out of game I would say hell no because its a jerk thing to do to the party unless you ask first. It's a huge presumption to just take a feat and say I get double loot now.
In game...RP wise, most people would view it the same way. You hired a secretary without asking the company if they wanted one on the pay roll? Guess what,..we ain't paying them"
How does the random magic item capable of being worn by an AC, which I imagine are few and far between, compare to giving an AC an equal share of the loot at every adventure point?
Nope a player who takes weapon focus and says I won't use my sword unless you pay more is a jerk wad.If you are working for a company and hire a guy all on your own to type all your emails...does the company have to kick in more pay for you to support the fact you hired a contractor to do part of your job? no.
Your cohort was your decision to bring on board...this is not a company hire..this is you subletting.
Your analogy is perfect. If I hire a guy to write my emails he writes MY emails. You want someone to write YOUR emails you better hire your own guy.
Or you can use my guy too, and pay for it. You are not getting for free, what I pay for.
And that's fine...but if I am the party cleric what's to stop me from saying that I refuse to heal unless you pay extra? After all it's a service I can provide much like your hired help that you would otherwise have to get elsewhere? At the end of the day it's really simple a cohort is your choice, unless agreed upon by the entire party. If you don't use him to help...I reserve the right to not use all of my resources to help you.
This is a collaborative game. If you or your cohort don't play nice neither will be invited back. In game and out.
Coffee Golem gets the cut of my gib. The party system is a social contract. You agree to use your abilities to the upmost for an equal share of the proceeds. If you choose to hire help to do part of your share without asking everyone first...they are not obligated to pay for it.
Feat or Class Ability, you CHOSE to have an ally, LOYAL to you. No where is it mentioned that it is HIRED help. Loyal is defined as giving or showing firm and constant support or allegiance to a person or institution. In this case, it's specific to a PERSON, singular! If YOU, the PERSON that took the feat, wants to retain said loyal subject, then YOU must provide for said loyal subject.
I did not go out and hire someone to type all my e-mails, my loyal companion (cohort) is doing it for me for free. But this loyal companion will not remain loyal if I let him/her starve or go without shelter or some other necessity. If I wish for this loyal person to better at what I have him/her doing, then I need to provide for him/her.
WOW!! I am talking about the actions of the COHORT, not my PC. You have stated repeatedly that you don't want the Cohort, so just like my Weapon Focus Feat, my Leadership Feat will benefit just me. My Cohort will help me, buff me, heal me whatever, he just won't help you. The same way my Weapon Focus Feat doesn't help you. Or your Blind Fight Feat doesn't help me. I won't ask you for any extra portion of the treasure, you don't ask for any assistance from MY Cohort.
This is a fallacious argument.
Every feat you take effects the party in some way.
If you take weapon focus as a Melee character you are enhancing your primary set of abilities and as such adding value to the party as a whole due to the fact that if you kill enemies faster then there will be fewer chances for injury/death, there will be fewer resources (Spells, scrolls, potions, daily ability uses) expended and the party gains a greater effective lifespan.
If in contrast you take Skill Focus (Profession: barrister), as a melee character you are adding a new capability or enhancing a non-primary capability of your character. This may or may not depending upon campaign enhance effective party life. If done often enough you could effectively dilute a PC to where responsibly the other PC's could ask for that character to leave the party due to inability to perform during dangerous and demanding scenarios.
So Leadership just like all other feats effects the party. It can potentially grant a much greater extension to effective party life than any other, however leadership comes at a cost that other feats do not entail.
It can directly affect in a negative way a PC who did not take the feat by making them unable to purchase needed/desired gear. If PC A takes leadership without consulting PCs B,C, or D then insists on a full or even partial share for Cohort A the other PCs can rightfully say "No, I do not have to be weaker so as to pay for your hireling."
This has both in game and out of game repercussions.
In game: If done as described and then responded to as you espouse, withholding services that come without cost or that put the party at greater risk if withheld, will most likely lead to an eventual party disintegration due to inter party tension and lack of trust.
Out of Game: It is possible that a player could become annoyed/angry due to lack of consideration from another player, as it is usually considered polite to ask the group before deciding to do something that will affect everyone.
Tl;dr: Leadership is very powerful and comes with additional costs. It is best discussed before dived into.
Just my opinion of course.
And that's fine...but if I am the party cleric what's to stop me from saying that I refuse to heal unless you pay extra? After all it's a service I can provide much like your hired help that you would otherwise have to get elsewhere? At the end of the day it's really simple a cohort is your choice, unless agreed upon by the entire party. If you don't use him to help...I reserve the right to not use all of my resources to help you.
If you're the party cleric healing me is free and you're already being paid for that service. Cohorts aren't free if you want them around for very long.
This is like if I take Craft Magic Arms and Armor and you want me to magic you a sword, but you don't want to pay the half price that it costs me to craft my own sword.
The Leader would still do what they always did in combat. The Cohort is seperate. If I took that feat and you didn't want to chip in, I'd tell you to just ignore the Cohort in battle. Pretend he's not there.
Covent is more articulate than I. But basically his post is exactly what I am getting at.
This is a fallacious argument.
Every feat you take effects the party in some way.
If you take weapon focus as a Melee character you are enhancing your primary set of abilities and as such adding value to the party as a whole due to the fact that if you kill enemies faster then there will be fewer chances for injury/death, there will be fewer resources (Spells, scrolls, potions, daily ability uses) expended and the party gains a greater effective lifespan.
If in contrast you take Skill Focus (Profession: barrister), as a melee character you are adding a new capability or enhancing a non-primary capability of your character. This may or may not depending upon campaign enhance effective party life. If done often enough you could effectively dilute a PC to where responsibly the other PC's could ask for that character to leave the party due to inability to perform during dangerous and demanding scenarios.
So Leadership just like all other feats effects the party. It can potentially grant a much greater extension to effective party life than any other, however leadership comes at a cost that other feats do not entail.
It can directly affect in a negative way a PC who did not take the feat by making them unable to purchase needed/desired gear. If PC A takes leadership without consulting PCs B,C, or D then insists on a full or even partial share for Cohort A the other PCs can rightfully say "No, I do not have to be weaker so as to pay for your hireling."
This has both in game and out of game...
I'll repeat what I said.
"I don't follow that. The Cohort still soaks up hits for the party. The Cohort still directly benefits his Leader which indirectly benefits the party. Sounds to me like your getting all the help you deserve. If you want more and it costs that player money (vis-a-vis gear) then you need to chip in to get the same benefits the Leader gets beyond the benefits everyone gets."
And that's fine...but if I am the party cleric what's to stop me from saying that I refuse to heal unless you pay extra? After all it's a service I can provide much like your hired help that you would otherwise have to get elsewhere? At the end of the day it's really simple a cohort is your choice, unless agreed upon by the entire party. If you don't use him to help...I reserve the right to not use all of my resources to help you.If you're the party cleric healing me is free and you're already being paid for that service. Cohorts aren't free if you want them around for very long.
This is like if I take Craft Magic Arms and Armor and you want me to magic you a sword, but you don't want to pay the half price that it costs me to craft my own sword.
The Leader would still do what they always did in combat. The Cohort is seperate. If I took that feat and you didn't want to chip in, I'd tell you to just ignore the Cohort in battle. Pretend he's not there.
Firstly that's a flat lie...there is zero in game cost for a cohort other than the arbitrary one your making up. Secondly your entitled to do whatever you like with him...that's correct, but again don't expect my help...ever. I will feel equally free to ignore you and your cohort.
This is a fallacious argument.
Every feat you take effects the party in some way.
If you take weapon focus as a Melee character you are enhancing your primary set of abilities and as such adding value to the party as a whole due to the fact that if you kill enemies faster then there will be fewer chances for injury/death, there will be fewer resources (Spells, scrolls, potions, daily ability uses) expended and the party gains a greater effective lifespan.
If in contrast you take Skill Focus (Profession: barrister), as a melee character you are adding a new capability or enhancing a non-primary capability of your character. This may or may not depending upon campaign enhance effective party life. If done often enough you could effectively dilute a PC to where responsibly the other PC's could ask for that character to leave the party due to inability to perform during dangerous and demanding scenarios.
So Leadership just like all other feats effects the party. It can potentially grant a much greater extension to effective party life than any other, however leadership comes at a cost that other feats do not entail.
It can directly affect in a negative way a PC who did not take the feat by making them unable to purchase needed/desired gear. If PC A takes leadership without consulting PCs B,C, or D then insists on a full or even partial share for Cohort A the other PCs can rightfully say "No, I do not have to be weaker so as to pay for your hireling."
This has both in game and out of game...
I'll repeat what I said.
"I don't follow that. The Cohort still soaks up hits for the party. The Cohort still directly benefits his Leader which indirectly benefits the party. Sounds to me like your getting all the help you deserve. If you want more and it costs that player money (vis-a-vis gear) then you need to chip in to get the same benefits the Leader gets beyond the benefits everyone gets."
Yup he absorbs hits...so does my shield and it doesn't get an extra cut either.
A wizard takes the leadership feat and gains a fighter cohort (no where does it state that the cohort is of the same class). The wizard maintains its fighter cohort as a personal bodygaurd enabling the wizard to be a better spell caster. Does this not in turn benefit the party, by means of making the wizard a more effective player? Or a fighter takes the feat and gains a cleric cohort, is the cleric cohort's primary responsibilty to the fighter?
This is a collaborative game. If you or your cohort don't play nice neither will be invited back. In game and out.
I agree completely, and IMO you are not being fully collaborative.
Firstly that's a flat lie...there is zero in game cost for a cohort other than the arbitrary one your making up. Secondly your entitled to do whatever you like with him...that's correct, but again don't expect my help...ever. I will feel equally free to ignore you and your cohort.
Non combat cohorts, I agree with you. Combat cohorts need gear to live just like everybody else does. I don't see how that's debatable.
So, since there's a cost, if why should you get all the same benefits at none of the cost?
How does the random magic item capable of being worn by an AC, which I imagine are few and far between, compare to giving an AC an equal share of the loot at every adventure point?
I never said it did, nor have I ever said that a Cohort should get a FULL share of the treasure either.
Yup he absorbs hits...so does my shield and it...
Your shield doesn't absorb any hits. It just raises your AC. Are you really saying a Cohort is as effective in combat as your shield?
A wizard takes the leadership feat and gains a fighter cohort (no where does it state that the cohort is of the same class). The wizard maintains its fighter cohort as a personal bodygaurd enabling the wizard to be a better spell caster. Does this not in turn benefit the party, by means of making the wizard a more effective player? Or a fighter takes the feat and gains a cleric cohort, is the cleric cohort's primary responsibilty to the fighter?
it's your cohort..use them how you like, it doesn't obligate the party to pick up the tab anymore than your share of the proceeds, unless the whole party agrees on the investment prior to the hire. I do however reserve the right to behave in the same way with any of my time and money I invest.
Firstly that's a flat lie...there is zero in game cost for a cohort other than the arbitrary one your making up. Secondly your entitled to do whatever you like with him...that's correct, but again don't expect my help...ever. I will feel equally free to ignore you and your cohort.And that's fine...but if I am the party cleric what's to stop me from saying that I refuse to heal unless you pay extra? After all it's a service I can provide much like your hired help that you would otherwise have to get elsewhere? At the end of the day it's really simple a cohort is your choice, unless agreed upon by the entire party. If you don't use him to help...I reserve the right to not use all of my resources to help you.If you're the party cleric healing me is free and you're already being paid for that service. Cohorts aren't free if you want them around for very long.
This is like if I take Craft Magic Arms and Armor and you want me to magic you a sword, but you don't want to pay the half price that it costs me to craft my own sword.
The Leader would still do what they always did in combat. The Cohort is seperate. If I took that feat and you didn't want to chip in, I'd tell you to just ignore the Cohort in battle. Pretend he's not there.
I guess you have never had a GM that has made you paid for rooms at an inn, or food, or travel expenses then, or any other living expenses.
Thinking again, I can't believe that a cohort, which is another full character (and all that that implies) was compared to a shield. The item.
Guys, I think I'm done for the night. That made my head hurt.
An animal companion or mount soaks up hits and absorbs damage. Does it a share of the loot?
Your shield doesn't absorb any hits. It just raises your AC. Are you really saying a Cohort is as effective in combat as your shield?
Yup he absorbs hits...so does my shield and it...
Semantics both by your example are mitigating damage to the party. It's your primary example of why I am benefiting,,,not mine.
Just admit you have an agenda and won't be convinced....it's fine your entitled to your opinion...
It's just a very unpopular one that will case many people to at least get annoyed with you...and some to probably not want to play with you at all should you take that feat.
I guess you have never had a GM that has made you paid for rooms at an inn, or food, or travel expenses then, or any other living expenses.Firstly that's a flat lie...there is zero in game cost for a cohort other than the arbitrary one your making up. Secondly your entitled to do whatever you like with him...that's correct, but again don't expect my help...ever. I will feel equally free to ignore you and your cohort.And that's fine...but if I am the party cleric what's to stop me from saying that I refuse to heal unless you pay extra? After all it's a service I can provide much like your hired help that you would otherwise have to get elsewhere? At the end of the day it's really simple a cohort is your choice, unless agreed upon by the entire party. If you don't use him to help...I reserve the right to not use all of my resources to help you.If you're the party cleric healing me is free and you're already being paid for that service. Cohorts aren't free if you want them around for very long.
This is like if I take Craft Magic Arms and Armor and you want me to magic you a sword, but you don't want to pay the half price that it costs me to craft my own sword.
The Leader would still do what they always did in combat. The Cohort is seperate. If I took that feat and you didn't want to chip in, I'd tell you to just ignore the Cohort in battle. Pretend he's not there.
sure have...but I didn't ask you to bring along another mouth to feed.
Seriously guys go in to work and tell your boss that your going to hire someone to take on part of your work and ask him how much he wants to pay this guy he didn't ask for to perform that service, when he is already paying you....see what he says.
Thinking again, I can't believe that a cohort, which is another full character (and all that that implies) was compared to a shield. The item.
Guys, I think I'm done for the night. That made my head hurt.
Fair enough...it was a bit strawman, but not nearly as much so as you would like to believe.
sure have...but I didn't ask you to bring along another mouth to feed.I guess you have never had a GM that has made you paid for rooms at an inn, or food, or travel expenses then, or any other living expenses.Firstly that's a flat lie...there is zero in game cost for a cohort other than the arbitrary one your making up. Secondly your entitled to do whatever you like with him...that's correct, but again don't expect my help...ever. I will feel equally free to ignore you and your cohort.And that's fine...but if I am the party cleric what's to stop me from saying that I refuse to heal unless you pay extra? After all it's a service I can provide much like your hired help that you would otherwise have to get elsewhere? At the end of the day it's really simple a cohort is your choice, unless agreed upon by the entire party. If you don't use him to help...I reserve the right to not use all of my resources to help you.If you're the party cleric healing me is free and you're already being paid for that service. Cohorts aren't free if you want them around for very long.
This is like if I take Craft Magic Arms and Armor and you want me to magic you a sword, but you don't want to pay the half price that it costs me to craft my own sword.
The Leader would still do what they always did in combat. The Cohort is seperate. If I took that feat and you didn't want to chip in, I'd tell you to just ignore the Cohort in battle. Pretend he's not there.
That means that there IS an in game cost that isn't being made up.
That means that there IS an in game cost that isn't being made up.sure have...but I didn't ask you to bring along another mouth to feed.I guess you have never had a GM that has made you paid for rooms at an inn, or food, or travel expenses then, or any other living expenses.Firstly that's a flat lie...there is zero in game cost for a cohort other than the arbitrary one your making up. Secondly your entitled to do whatever you like with him...that's correct, but again don't expect my help...ever. I will feel equally free to ignore you and your cohort.And that's fine...but if I am the party cleric what's to stop me from saying that I refuse to heal unless you pay extra? After all it's a service I can provide much like your hired help that you would otherwise have to get elsewhere? At the end of the day it's really simple a cohort is your choice, unless agreed upon by the entire party. If you don't use him to help...I reserve the right to not use all of my resources to help you.If you're the party cleric healing me is free and you're already being paid for that service. Cohorts aren't free if you want them around for very long.
This is like if I take Craft Magic Arms and Armor and you want me to magic you a sword, but you don't want to pay the half price that it costs me to craft my own sword.
The Leader would still do what they always did in combat. The Cohort is seperate. If I took that feat and you didn't want to chip in, I'd tell you to just ignore the Cohort in battle. Pretend he's not there.
There is no cost prescribed in the PHB for taking, nor keeping the cohort....nor anybody forcing you to take one. Is that more clear? Or would you like to fixate on more language in search of the magic loophole that will change everyone's mind?
A wizard takes the leadership feat and gains a fighter cohort (no where does it state that the cohort is of the same class). The wizard maintains its fighter cohort as a personal bodygaurd enabling the wizard to be a better spell caster. Does this not in turn benefit the party, by means of making the wizard a more effective player? Or a fighter takes the feat and gains a cleric cohort, is the cleric cohort's primary responsibilty to the fighter?it's your cohort..use them how you like, it doesn't obligate the party to pick up the tab anymore than your share of the proceeds, unless the whole party agrees on the investment prior to the hire. I do however reserve the right to behave in the same way with any of my time and money I invest.
First: I'm argueing the point of the PC providing for the cohort, not the cohort getting a equal share of the loot.
Second: The cohort is LOYAL to not hired by the PC. Same as with an animal companion or mount. Difference between the two is the AC/mount gains bonuses as the PC gains level while the cohort is free to level up with its own class levels.
Third: Being loyal as opposed to hired, the cohort benefits the PC with the feat first and foremost. Any benefit to the rest of the party is secondary.
Fourth: An animal companion, a cohort, a mount or any other creature LOYAL to a specific PC leave the party at its first chance if that PC dies (at negative Con score). Whether it's the middle of a battle, dungeon, etc. The PC is its only link to the party.