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.
Several important differences here. The rest of the party is NOT my boss. Second the Cohort is not performing part of MY work, he is contributing to the group as a whole.
So if another player wants to join your game, do you not give him any loot? After all he would be both cutting into your loot and your XP.
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.
. Not disagreeing with you..just elaborating on my position.
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.Several important differences here. The rest of the party is NOT my boss. Second the Cohort is not performing part of MY work, he is contributing to the group as a whole.
So if another player wants to join your game, do you not give him any loot? After all he would be both cutting into your loot and your XP.
What is a party if not a business, you are taking money out of everyone's pocket without asking? Your hiring someone who is a drain on resources without consulting those people.
This is not a player, this is you employee. You are just investing him with player status because you do not want to shoulder the burden of your own choice.
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?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 rule in the rulebook preventing dead characters from taking actions either. As there is no rule in the rulebook stating that my Cohort has to assist your character.
There is no...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?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.
never once have I said he had to assist me. But I reserve the right to withhold any resources at my disposal in kind.
Understandable and I believe Slade has been given numerous valid reason as to why a cohort should not recieve any loot. Also to Vod, again the cohort does NOT cut into the XP as a cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP. Again cited Core Rulebook p. 129, second pargraph, first sentence right below Table 5-2. If a cohort does not count as a party member when determining XP, why should it count as a party member when determining loot?
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.Several important differences here. The rest of the party is NOT my boss. Second the Cohort is not performing part of MY work, he is contributing to the group as a whole.
So if another player wants to join your game, do you not give him any loot? After all he would be both cutting into your loot and your XP.
What is a party if not a business, you are taking money out of everyone's pocket without asking? Your hiring someone who is a drain on resources without consulting those people.
This is not a player, this is you employee. You are just investing him with player status because you do not want to shoulder the burden of your own choice.
Funny I see the Cohort as an addition to resources, not a drain. The Cohort adds his abilities, presumably some that the party didn't already have or at least an additional boost to those that already exist. The cohort adds to speed at which monsters are killed, preserving the resources that would spent in killing the monsters, whether they be spells, time, ammunition, or magic items.
If you don't want another PC to have a cohort then make it clear from the beginning. And if you don't want to give a cohort any share of the treasure, then don't expect anything back from the cohort. If you want to kick me out of the campaign because my cohort, that you refuse to help, won't help you, likely I didn't want to play your group anyway.
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.Several important differences here. The rest of the party is NOT my boss. Second the Cohort is not performing part of MY work, he is contributing to the group as a whole.
So if another player wants to join your game, do you not give him any loot? After all he would be both cutting into your loot and your XP.
What is a party if not a business, you are taking money out of everyone's pocket without asking? Your hiring someone who is a drain on resources without consulting those people.
This is not a player, this is you employee. You are just investing him with player status because you do not want to shoulder the burden of your own choice.
Funny I see the Cohort as an addition to resources, not a drain. The Cohort adds his abilities, presumably some that the party didn't already have or at least an additional boost to those that already exist. The cohort adds to speed at which monsters are killed, preserving the resources that would spent in killing the monsters, whether they be spells, time, ammunition, or magic items.
If you don't want another PC to have a cohort then make it clear from the beginning. And if you don't want to give a cohort any share of the treasure, then don't expect anything back from the cohort. If you want to kick me out of the campaign because my cohort, that you refuse to help, won't help you, likely I didn't want to play your group anyway.
Lets try another angle....
We are roommates and I buy a dog. I don't ask, just come home with a cute lil puppy. Then hand you half the vet bills, ask for money towards food, a collar, and bed. Then when you get upset, I say we'll, you get the benefit of petting him, and his doggy kisses, and the fact he protects the home just as much as I do. The fact I didn't ask is irrelevant, since he lives here now, it's equally your problem. Does that sound like correct behavior to you?
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...
Every Feat doesn't benefit me or the party in some way, I can take Metamagic Feats without being a spell caster. The Feats are utterly useless to both me and the party. (And given my opinion of Feats, I'm likely to do this with a character.) Or I can take exotic weapon feats and never use the weapons, Skill Focus in skills that are never used, weapon specific feats for weapons I don't use, all sorts of useless feats out there if you look for them.
I shall give to instances, both of which the PC takes the leadership feat without consulting the party prior to doing so.
1) Cohort beneficially aids all party members equally, does it get an equal share of the loot?
2) Cohort aids the PC it is loyal to primarily, but stills provides benefits to the rest of th party as long as its PC is taken care of first. Does it get an equal share of the loot?
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.Several important differences here. The rest of the party is NOT my boss. Second the Cohort is not performing part of MY work, he is contributing to the group as a whole.
So if another player wants to join your game, do you not give him any loot? After all he would be both cutting into your loot and your XP.
What is a party if not a business, you are taking money out of everyone's pocket without asking? Your hiring someone who is a drain on resources without consulting those people.
This is not a player, this is you employee. You are just investing him with player status because you do not want to shoulder the burden of your own choice.
Funny I see the Cohort as an addition to resources, not a drain. The Cohort adds his abilities, presumably some that the party didn't already have or at least an additional boost to those that already exist. The cohort adds to speed at which monsters are killed, preserving the resources that would spent in killing the monsters, whether they be spells, time, ammunition, or magic items.
If you don't want another PC to have a cohort then make it clear from the beginning. And if you don't want to give a cohort any share of the treasure, then don't expect anything back from the cohort. If you want to kick me out of the campaign because my cohort, that you refuse to help, won't help you, likely I didn't want to play your group anyway.
Lets try another angle....
We are roommates and I buy a dog. I don't ask, just come home with a cute lil puppy. Then hand you half the vet bills, ask for money towards food, a collar, and bed. Then when you get upset, I say we'll, you get the benefit...
Is the dog helping you at work? Helping you earn extra money? Saving your life?
Let's say that the dog, {we'll make it smart because we are talking about a person not a dog) knows that even after it has fought off the mugger that attacked you, you haven't done anything to help the dog or it's owner support the dog. So now the house is on fire, and the dog drags his owner out of the house, but never bothers to bark to wake you up, or tries to warn you in any way. I'd say you get what you deserve.
Vod engaging in reducta ad absurdum isn't helping your argument. Every time someone brings up a point you don't like you deflect by coming up with an exaggerated absurdist example and claim its the same...it's not, and it's poor debate.
And if you have been reading anything I have said...I am more than okay with the dog not saving me. I am also okay with you asking before buying the dog if I am willing to kick in....but it is not right under any circumstance to presume I should pay just because you bought the dog, nor am I further obligated to pull you or your dog out of the same fire once you have abandoned me in kind.
I shall give to instances, both of which the PC takes the leadership feat without consulting the party prior to doing so.
1) Cohort beneficially aids all party members equally, does it get an equal share of the loot?
2) Cohort aids the PC it is loyal to primarily, but stills provides benefits to the rest of th party as long as its PC is taken care of first. Does it get an equal share of the loot?
Why are you focused upon an EQUAL share of the loot. I'm not advocating that the Cohort get an equal share, and would argue against that. I am saying that the cohort deserves some share of the loot. In our Kingmaker Campaign the lone Cohort gets about 1/3 to 1/2 what the PCs get, although we did recently give him an item to swap out the lesser version he had, and gave the lesser version to the Cleric.
The very first post in this thread says equal share for starters.
How do you guys handle DMPCs? are the fact that they are run by the DM mean they get no treasure? Or are they considered 'part of the group' and sharing the same danger?
Really, it looks like the same thing here.
Vod engaging in reducta ad absurdum isn't helping your argument. Every time someone brings up a point you don't like you deflect by coming up with an exaggerated absurdist example and claim its the same...it's not, and it's poor debate.
It's funny, because you keep comparing the Cohort to a dog. Which is an absurdist example.
Thank you Lazurin. I've been argue that point from the begin while Vod has been argueing for the sake of argueing. Did you even read what this thread was about before uttering gibberish like your feat rant. Only a useless player would take feats useless to the PC.
How do you guys handle DMPCs? are the fact that they are run by the DM mean they get no treasure? Or are they considered 'part of the group' and sharing the same danger?
Really, it looks like the same thing here.
Did the PC's request the help of an NPC? There is no such thing as a DMPC. There are PCs and NPCs. Player controls a PLayer Characters (PC). DM controls all others, thus making them Non-Player Characters (NPC).
And if you have been reading anything I have said...I am more than okay with the dog not saving me. I am also okay with you asking before buying the dog if I am willing to kick in....but it is not right under any circumstance to presume I should pay just because you bought the dog, nor am I further obligated to pull you or your dog out of the same fire once you have abandoned me in kind.
Kind of funny, because not to long ago you wrote this:
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.
So which is it, you don't care if the Cohort won't help you, or you will kick both the PC and Cohort from the party?
He was refering to a Player refusing to aid the party, not the cohort.
Thank you Lazurin. I've been argue that point from the begin while Vod has been argueing for the sake of argueing. Did you even read what this thread was about before uttering gibberish like your feat rant. Only a useless player would take feats useless to the PC.
Thank you for calling me a useless player...
The current cleric I am playing is going to take the feats necessary to create Clockworks, he will never create a clockwork during the campaign, but it is the goal of the character to create them.
He was refering to a Player refusing to aid the party, not the cohort.
No that was in reply to my saying that my cohort would not aid his character.
Thank you Lazurin. I've been argue that point from the begin while Vod has been argueing for the sake of argueing. Did you even read what this thread was about before uttering gibberish like your feat rant. Only a useless player would take feats useless to the PC.Thank you for calling me a useless player...
The current cleric I am playing is going to take the feats necessary to create Clockworks, he will never create a clockwork during the campaign, but it is the goal of the character to create them.
That's different from a player of a non-spell casting class taking metamagic feats. Your clock works example is role-playing another dimension to the character. Goals and achieving those goals are different from taking feats that a certain type of character has no business taking.
That's different from a player of a non-spell casting class taking metamagic feats. Your clock works example is role-playing another dimension to the character. Goals and achieving those goals are different from taking feats that a certain type of character has no business taking.Thank you Lazurin. I've been argue that point from the begin while Vod has been argueing for the sake of argueing. Did you even read what this thread was about before uttering gibberish like your feat rant. Only a useless player would take feats useless to the PC.Thank you for calling me a useless player...
The current cleric I am playing is going to take the feats necessary to create Clockworks, he will never create a clockwork during the campaign, but it is the goal of the character to create them.
True, but under the game playing the feats are useless, they will never be used in the campaign, and provide no advantage to the PC.
I've also taken feats that for various reasons have never been used. I have a character that has Point Blank Shot, but I can't ever remember using it.
I would personally believe that you would need ranks in Craft (clockworks). I don't know of any feats you would need to make a mechanical device other than the appropriate skill focus feat. I stand corrected other statement. I misread where you were taking about your cohort. I remember somewhere earlier when a person stated the his character & cohort would refuse to help.
Also, Point-Blank Shot only applies to ranged attacks with-in 30 feet. I have over looked it with characters before. I should have hit, instead of the miss, or done more damage than I did.
I would personally believe that you would need ranks in Craft (clockworks). I don't know of any feats you would need to make a mechanical device other than the appropriate skill focus feat. I stand corrected other statement. I misread where you were taking about your cohort. I remember somewhere earlier when a person stated the his character & cohort would refuse to help.
You need Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Magical Arms & Armor, and Craft Construct to create a Clockwork.
Under what rules? A Clockwork is a mechanism with a spring and toothed gearwheels, used to drive a mechanical clock, toy, or other device. It is neither a wondrous item, magical arm or armor or even a construct. All three feats are for crafting a item of magical ability, design or function. A clockwork is mechanical.
Edit: please give cite
That's different from a player of a non-spell casting class taking metamagic feats. Your clock works example is role-playing another dimension to the character. Goals and achieving those goals are different from taking feats that a certain type of character has no business taking.Thank you Lazurin. I've been argue that point from the begin while Vod has been argueing for the sake of argueing. Did you even read what this thread was about before uttering gibberish like your feat rant. Only a useless player would take feats useless to the PC.Thank you for calling me a useless player...
The current cleric I am playing is going to take the feats necessary to create Clockworks, he will never create a clockwork during the campaign, but it is the goal of the character to create them.
True, but under the game playing the feats are useless, they will never be used in the campaign, and provide no advantage to the PC.
I've also taken feats that for various reasons have never been used. I have a character that has Point Blank Shot, but I can't ever remember using it.
I actually addressed this issue in my last post.
In game the PCs are usually facing difficult and dangerous encounters either through immediate physical danger (Combat) or Social/Mental tests that if failed will create hardship (High Court ball with a hidden poisoner, that the PCs must stop but not expose as this would embarrass the host who is their patron).
Now if you are a PC who is able to meet the standards of competency set by your group then all will be fine. If however you are not able to perform a useful task due to building your character in a mechanically detrimental way, the other PC's in the group will have to do their share and yours as well. In this situation many PCs would choose to dissociate themselves from you due to you adding risk and not contributing.
In short all feats taken have an effect upon the group due to the fact that you are able to handle your share of the load in a commensurately better or worse way.
Most individual choices do not drive you below minimum competency and so you are able to take non optimal choices and still perform at a satisfactory level, therefore costing the group nothing.
Leadership if it requires a cohort to be paid by the group rather than the individual however is the same in kind if not in degree as a mechanically inferior build.
It is an individual choice that can affect the group as individuals and if uses in the manner you espouse as a group in a negative manner.
Out of game other players may find their fun reduced, I know at my table this has been the case by a deliberately mechanically poor character.
I am not in this case speaking of a feat or two spent on role-playing or ability enhancement.
I am talking about a case where a player builds something like:
Human Fighter
Favored Class +1 Skill point
Str: 10
Dex: 10
Con: 10
Wis: 10
Int: 15
Chr: 15
Feats: Skill focus (Barrister), Toughness, Weapon Finesse
Weapons: Large Bastard sword -1/1d10 + 0
Armor: Silken Ceremonial armor AC 11
Skills: (All with one rank)
Profession Barrister: 6
Diplomacy: 3
Knowledge Local: 3
Knowledge Nobility: 3
Sense Motive: 1
Intimidate: 6
This would be hard pressed to be called acceptable for most games I would believe.
Unless playing a specific campaign where all of the action is based around being a Barrister this is a selection of very questionable choices. Even then it is extremely unoptimal.
This would penalize the group by adding risk via the fact that APL is based on Party size and level, and cause the other players to be more optimized to survive in a world with monsters/traps/encounters straight out of the AP's/Bestiary.
Leadership does exactly this. It causes the other PC's to have to change what they would normally do in order to accommodate you.
Doing something like this is rude in my opinion without checking with the group first.
Under what rules? A Clockwork is a mechanism with a spring and toothed gearwheels, used to drive a mechanical clock, toy, or other device. It is neither a wondrous item, magical arm or armor or even a construct. All three feats are for crafting a item of magical ability, design or function. A clockwork is mechanical.
Edit: please give cite
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Construct, geas/quest and make whole, creator must be at least caster level 12th; Skill Craft (clockwork) DC 20; Cost 4,000 gp (7,000 for an intelligent clockwork servant)
Craft Construct has Craft Woundrous Item and Craft Magical Arms & Armor as prereqs.
Ok, I was thinking literally. I did not realize that it was a form of Contruct. Really cool idea.
I actually addressed this issue in my last post.
In game the PCs are usually facing difficult and dangerous encounters either through immediate physical danger (Combat) or Social/Mental tests that if failed will create hardship (High Court ball with a hidden poisoner, that the PCs must stop but not expose as this would embarrass the host who is their patron).
Now if you are a PC who is able to meet the standards of competency set by your group then all will be fine. If however you are not able to perform a useful task due to building your character in a mechanically detrimental way, the other PC's in the group will have to do their share and yours as well. In this situation many PCs would choose to dissociate themselves from you due to you adding risk and not contributing.
In short all feats taken have an effect upon the group due to the fact that you are able to handle your share of the load in a commensurately better or worse way.
Most individual choices do not drive you below minimum competency and so you are able to take non optimal choices and still perform at a satisfactory level, therefore costing the group nothing.
Leadership if it requires a cohort to be paid by the group rather than the individual however is the same in kind if not in degree as a mechanically inferior build.
It is an individual choice that can affect the group as individuals and if uses in the manner you espouse as a group in a negative manner.
Out of game other players may find their fun reduced, I know at my table this has been the case by a deliberately mechanically poor character.
I am not in this case speaking of a feat or two spent on role-playing or ability enhancement.
I am talking about a case where a player builds something like:
Human Fighter
Favored Class +1 Skill pointStr: 10
Dex: 10
Con: 10
Wis: 10
Int: 15
Chr: 15Feats: Skill focus (Barrister), Toughness, Weapon Finesse
Weapons: Large Bastard sword -1/1d10 + 0
Armor: Silken Ceremonial armor AC 11Skills: (All with one rank)
Profession Barrister: 6
Diplomacy: 3
Knowledge Local: 3
Knowledge Nobility: 3
Sense Motive: 1
Intimidate: 6
This would be hard pressed to be called acceptable for most games I would believe.
Unless playing a specific campaign where all of the action is based around being a Barrister this is a selection of very questionable choices. Even then it is extremely unoptimal.
This would penalize the group by adding risk via the fact that APL is based on Party size and level, and cause the other players to be more optimized to survive in a world with monsters/traps/encounters straight out of the AP's/Bestiary.
Leadership does exactly this. It causes the other PC's to have to change what they would normally do in order to accommodate you.
Doing something like this is rude in my opinion without checking with the group first.
And telling me how to play or build my character is even ruder. If the other PCs don't like my character then disinvite me, but don't tell me how to build or play my character.
You say that Leadership changes what they would normally do. I don't see how that is. I have played where others have taken leadership and it has not changed what I did or took as a player.
Ok, I was thinking literally. I did not realize that it was a form of Contruct. Really cool idea.
Sorry about the confusion, my Cleric is a worshipper of Brigh.
And telling me how to play or build my character is even ruder. If the other PCs don't like my character then disinvite me, but don't tell me how to build or play my character.
You say that Leadership changes what they would normally do. I don't see how that is. I have played where others have taken leadership and it has not changed what I did or took as a player.
I am not saying that the other players get to dictate to you.
What I am saying is that in game the PC's have a social contract, and out of game the Players have a separate and different social contract.
The PC's is usually based around surviving and succeeding at their various endeavors.
The Players is usually about having fun.
Now if you take leadership and say out of game "Ok, from now on everyone will get 1/6 of all treasure rather than 1/5 because I decided to take this feat."
and
In game your character says "My dear nephew/Son/hireling/*Insert reason here* is going to be adventuring with us! You all get 1/6 rather than 1/5 of all treasure from now on."
This means that the players out of game are being dictated to by you without allowing them input, which is what I have a problem with.
Just as they should not tell you how to meet minimum standards of competency, as long as you meet them, you should not be able to dictate to them that they now get less treasure because of your choices.
You have the choice when you take Leadership of how you will write in the Cohort. So if you write it in that Bob the Fighter cohort expects a full treasure share, then that is your choice and you are dictating to the other players and PC's.
Now if this is the way your group wants to do things ok, as long as the social contract is kept it is fine. However it is my opinion that most players would expect to be consulted before being told they are going to be losing out on treasure.
No other player should tell you "No, you cannot take leadership!" just like no other player should say you cannot take power attack or dodge or Iron Will. Those are your choices.
But they can say that they will not have a character with a +2 weapon rather than a +3 weapon because you refuse to refluff you cohort and are writing him in as demanding a treasure share.
Basically before taking leadership, unless you plan on entirely equipping your Cohort out of your share you need to ask the other players out of game and the other PC's in game as it effects them directly.
I am espousing communication, not dictation.
This is all my opinion of course.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One way as a GM I would solve this is divide the wealth up as if all the players had a cohort. So if there are 5 players, I would divide the wealth to 10 shares. If you have a cohort, it gets one 10th the loot.
I would prevent this from happening in the first place though by letting any player know that planed on getting the leadership feat that they are the player's cohort and not the party's and as such is only given what the player gives them.
Let this be a lesson to GMs that having a planed progression for your player's characters can help you side step future disagreements.
One way as a GM I would solve this is divide the wealth up as if all the players had a cohort. So if there are 5 players, I would divide the wealth to 10 shares. If you have a cohort, it gets one 10th the loot.
I would prevent this from happening in the first place though by letting any player know that planed on getting the leadership feat that they are the player's cohort and not the party's and as such is only given what the player gives them.
Let this be a lesson to GMs that having a planed progression for your player's characters can help you side step future disagreements.
Give it til morning. Slade will have some snide comment trying to refute your proclaimation.
|
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.
The point is that you are trying to decide what is "fair" in a vacuum, and a cohort don't work in a vacuum. As your decision a priori without considering the actual situation will influence the cohort actions, as you are the GM, you are setting the players to fail if they don't follow your vision.
What we have done in my group? We come from 1st edition, where you had henchmen, i.e. paid hirelings, and a specific cost for them, so the henchmen get 1/2 share of the party loot (or less if there is a big level difference between him and the party) and a wage from his employer.
A cohort is a different beast as he has decided to follow a specific party member by his will and not for the pay and can be any kind of creature, not simply a member of the main races.
So:
1) keeping the cohort happy is the duty of the character that has taken the leadership feat;
2) unless there was a prior agreement the other players have all the right to refuse him any part of the loot, again the cohort is the responsibility of the player that has taken leadership, not of the other party members;
3) the cohort will react to the other party members on the basis of how they act with him, not giving him a specific part of the loot is part of how they treat him, but it is not the sum or it;
4) the cohort isn't a possession of the other party members so he can require compensation for any thing that he do specifically for them. Fighting (in the broad sense of the term) alongside his master isn't something he do for the group, he do that for his master;
5) it is extremely unfair to ever think that the cohort will be ready to backstab any and all party members because they aren't giving him a share of the loot. It isn't their duty to care for him, it is his leader duty. He will not take undue risks for them and pretend compensation if he were to expend a non renovable resource specifically for them, but nothing more.
If you are paid for working and your fellow employees get a bonus and you didn't with who you are annoyed? The other employees or your employer?
|
|
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.
But you and the people that agree with you have moved several times the goal to "having him writing my mails save me time, so I am better at my job, the company should pay him because he make me better at my job".
|
|
One significant difference between the Druid Animal Companion and the Cohort, I should point out, is that one is a class ability and the other is a feat. This may seem obvious, but the difference is huge. If I'm a Druid, I don't choose between an Animal Companion and something else, I choose between bringing my AC along and having nothing. When I hit level six, I choose if I want a cohort or not. I don't get it for free with all of my other, more important class abilities.
The animal companion come from the nature bond class feature, nature bond can be used to get "one of the following cleric domains: Air, Animal, Earth, Fire, Plant, Water, or Weather" or "an animal companion".
AFAIK that is true for almost all classes with a animal companion, mount and so on, you can trade the creature for another feature under the main class rules or using some archetype.So having a animal companion is a choice.
|
|
How do you guys handle DMPCs? are the fact that they are run by the DM mean they get no treasure? Or are they considered 'part of the group' and sharing the same danger?
Really, it looks like the same thing here.
Not at all.
1) their power level can vary greatly, from a fraction of the power of a PC to being more powerful than all the party members so what they add tot he group is very variable and hard to judge;
2) generally they have specific reasons to be part of the group for a short time and what they get and why they get it is agreed beforehand;
3) if they are a constant part of the group they are generally at the same level of the other party members and get the same rewards, but getting another player generally is better than having a GM player characters. My experiences with them as a player have been annoying. As a GM I had only one in several years of playing, she was a PC lover and she was managed 90% of the time by the players, not by me.
|
|
And telling me how to play or build my character is even ruder. If the other PCs don't like my character then disinvite me, but don't tell me how to build or play my character.
Nice dichotomy here. "You can't dictate how I play my character but I can dictate how you play your with my choice of feats".
"My choice of feats should be paid by the party" is dictating how the other player should play their characters.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be quite honest: I still can't believe that this thread is a going concern.
First: The GM should have zero control about intra-party loot distribution. Once he's handed out a piece of treasure, it's out of his hands what the party chooses to do with it.
Second: I have never played in a game where any player has insisted on another member of the party not getting a particular piece of treasure because it "affects my share". If the party finds a Blessed Book and the party wizard is someone's cohort, guess where that item is going to end up? I can guarantee that it's not going to be the Rogue insisting on having it to "make up my share". Now, if the party finds 50,000 gp worth of gems and coins, they get to choose how to divvy that up, and if the Fighter with the Wizard cohort only gets 12,500 gp, same as everyone else, that's up to the party. If the party decides to give the wizard 10,000 gp and they all get 10,000 gp each, too, that's up to them. If they decide to give the wizard a mere 2,000 and the PCs get 12,000 each, that's up to them.
The important thing is that it's not up to any one person who gets what share - the group as a whole decides. If the Fighter manages to wrangle a higher share from the party to keep his Wizard cohort at a useful power level, that's the party's choice. Not the Fighter player's, and certainly not the GM's.
And telling me how to play or build my character is even ruder. If the other PCs don't like my character then disinvite me, but don't tell me how to build or play my character.Nice dichotomy here. "You can't dictate how I play my character but I can dictate how you play your with my choice of feats".
"My choice of feats should be paid by the party" is dictating how the other player should play their characters.
And how am I dictating how you play your character?
Orignal post was an in-game reason why a cohort should not recieve an EQUAL portion of the loot. Really it all boils down to is it the party's responsible to pay for one player's cohort or that single player to take care of the cohort out of his/her own purse? As the cohort is loyal to the player with the feat first and formost, that should equip his/her cohort out of their own share of the loot. The cohort's sole link to the party is the PC with the leadership feat. The cohort ceases its benefits to the party if the PC controlling that character is not in the party. If a specific magic item is of value to the cohort as well as another player, that should be determined between the player's PCthat has the cohort and the other PC(s). A rogue PC might request an item he/she cannot use in order to sell it and buy an item that is beneficial to the rogue. Just because the cohort maybe be the only character that is capable of using an item doesn't mean that the item automatically goes to that character.
|
|
And how am I dictating how you play your character?And telling me how to play or build my character is even ruder. If the other PCs don't like my character then disinvite me, but don't tell me how to build or play my character.Nice dichotomy here. "You can't dictate how I play my character but I can dictate how you play your with my choice of feats".
"My choice of feats should be paid by the party" is dictating how the other player should play their characters.
By removing part of the loot to pay for your feat. You reduce my choices for your personal interest.
Orignal post was an in-game reason why a cohort should not recieve an EQUAL portion of the loot. Really it all boils down to is it the party's responsible to pay for one player's cohort or that single player to take care of the cohort out of his/her own purse? As the cohort is loyal to the player with the feat first and formost, that should equip his/her cohort out of their own share of the loot. The cohort's sole link to the party is the PC with the leadership feat. The cohort ceases its benefits to the party if the PC controlling that character is not in the party. If a specific magic item is of value to the cohort as well as another player, that should be determined between the player's PCthat has the cohort and the other PC(s). A rogue PC might request an item he/she cannot use in order to sell it and buy an item that is beneficial to the rogue. Just because the cohort maybe be the only character that is capable of using an item doesn't mean that the item automatically goes to that character.
"Equal" portion of the loot already assume you share the loot on the basis of its value, not its usefulness to character A or B.
Generally if you share in equal portions you evaluate the value of all the loot, every character has a purchase power on par of his share from the loot and what is left after everyone has brought what interested him you sell the leftover and anyone get what is left of his share in money.If someone want a item that is worth more than his share he can pay from his pocket money or incur a debit against the other party members, a debit that he will pay during future loot divisions.
That way you avoid problems with "we are getting only martial character or spellcasters or archers loot".
The wand or scroll of shield isn't automatically assigned to the wizard, willing or unwilling. The fighter don't get automatically the melee weapon, even if he already has plenty of them.
Similarly the cohort don't get automatically item X because he is the one that can use it.
But you and the people that agree with you have moved several times the goal to "having him writing my mails save me time, so I am better at my job, the company should pay him because he make me better at my job".
No. I. Haven't. Haven't seen anyone else do that either.
Once again, if he writes only my emails, I, AND ONLY I, should pay for him.
It's when you decide you also want your emails written by him (you want him to Haste YOU/heal YOU/craft for YOU) that YOU need to pay.
Once again, this is not "the company's" email writer, I hired him for me. If the company wants him to write their emails, they better pay him.