|
This is a collaborative game. If you or your cohort don't play nice neither will be invited back. In game and out.
Sorry but that doesn't cut it.
You can't sit there and tell a player that his cohort gets no treasure but he must still help the entire party or get kicked out.
Sorry but you would be told to go and f&$k yourself.
This is a collaborative game. If you or your cohort don't play nice neither will be invited back. In game and out.Sorry but that doesn't cut it.
You can't sit there and tell a player that his cohort gets no treasure but he must still help the entire party or get kicked out.
Sorry but you would be told to go and f&$k yourself.
Me and shallowsoul agree on something. The world is upsidedown.
|
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.
We have heard your stock reply a few times. it not become more true with repetition.
Your cohort want to be cured in combat or out of it? He want to be helped or he want to want to be left to die if someone attack him?
If he do nothing for the other guys he will get nothing.
When he is using something that target 1 person no one will begrudge him for helping only his master of himself. If when he use something with multiple targets he use only use it on those two specific character we will see him as a mooch that siphon party resources to protect him and heal him.
The occasional help don't entitle him to ha share of the loot, or even a partial share, like your e-mail guy don't get paid by the firm because he bring a coffee cup to all the people during a office reunion and not only to you.
So long as he help you and is your sidekick it is your responsibility. Unless he consistently and constantly help the whole group he is part your character for the players and your employee for the other characters.
If he is brought into the party to be the party healbot or a frontline fighter or the party buffer the situation change but that require a joint party decision, a decision where the party define how he is compensated for his work, but it isn't something that you can decide alone.
Most companies won't even allow your e-mail guy on their property and would frown on him knowing what you are doing for them.
Your cohort isn't different, the other party members have no reason to trust him simply because he is your groupie.
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.
We have heard your stock reply a few times. it not become more true with repetition.
Your cohort want to be cured in combat or out of it? He want to be helped or he want to want to be left to die if someone attack him?
If he do nothing for the other guys he will get nothing.
When he is using something that target 1 person no one will begrudge him for helping only his master of himself. If when he use something with multiple targets he use only use it on those two specific character we will see him as a mooch that siphon party resources to protect him and heal him.
The occasional help don't entitle him to ha share of the loot, or even a partial share, like your e-mail guy don't get paid by the firm because he bring a coffee cup to all the people during a office reunion and not only to you.So long as he help you and is your sidekick it is your responsibility. Unless he consistently and constantly help the whole group he is part your character for the players and your employee for the other characters.
If he is brought into the party to be the party healbot or a frontline fighter or the party buffer the situation change but that require a joint party decision, a decision where the party define how he is compensated for his work, but it isn't something that you can decide alone.
Most...
You mostly just repeated what I just said. I don't know why you're trying to convince me that a cohort who only helps his Leader shouldn't get any extra treasure, when I already said that myself.
You did make me wonder though, how does a Cohort who leaves you out of something like Haste hurt you? I understand why it doesn't help you, but you wouldn't be Hasted if the Cohort wasn't there regardless. So, how does it actively hurt you?
|
|
Hurt me? No.
Being useless, as far as I am concerned and a burden if I must care even a little about keeping him alive? Sure.
Your position, as far as I see it, is that as soon as your cohort do something for another party member he is entitled to a share of the loot.
Mine is that, until he do something constantly for the party and that put him at least on par with a fraction of the usefulness of a normal party member he isn't entitled to anything from people that hasn't taken the feat.
Your cohort St are a couple of point lower than the other party members? he is a weak link.
He soak up healing we could otherwise pare because his AC/ST aren't on par the the other party members or because he simply add another body in the area of affect of a spell? he is using up our resources.
He is another guy we need to ferry with teleport? another one we need to get to the bluff 300' above us? Across the river? One more phantom steed? A cohort can be a force multiplier or a force divisor. If he work only for you but eat up party resources he is a force divisor.
Let's all just agree to disagree on this subject. It seems there are very strong feelings in both camps on how loot should be divided or not divided with party cohorts. We are now in the stages of re-re-re-repeating our arguments. What's the point now? Nothing new is being said and not one person has jumped ship over to the other side. It's beating a dead horse...
It has been said, numerous times, and even though the one that started this thread has argued against me on several points and then stated what I have said at other times, I will state this one last time.
A COHORT SHOULD NOT GET A SHARE, EQUAL OR NOT, OF THE PARTY'S LOOT!!!
A cohort is loyal to the one and ONLY the one PC. The one PC is responsible for the cohort, equiping, feeding, clothing, healing him/her, and no one else's responsibilty. The cohort in service of the one PC should only act in favor of other PCs only if it directly benefits him/her (the cohort) or the PC in control of the cohort. The cleric (a PC) heals other party members because it directly benefits the cleric, the party and/or the cleric's diety. If the cohort provides services for other PCs, it needs to be at the bidding of the cohort's PC. Not the GM, not the other PCs! If the PC on control of the cohort deems a particular piece of the loot useful to the cohort, the PC needs to obtain the item and gift/provide it to the cohort.
|
|
It has been said, numerous times, and even though the one that started this thread has argued against me on several points and then stated what I have said at other times, I will state this one last time.
A COHORT SHOULD NOT GET A SHARE, EQUAL OR NOT, OF THE PARTY'S LOOT!!!
A cohort is loyal to the one and ONLY the one PC. The one PC is responsible for the cohort, equiping, feeding, clothing, healing him/her, and no one else's responsibilty. The cohort in service of the one PC should only act in favor of other PCs only if it directly benefits him/her (the cohort) or the PC in control of the cohort. The cleric (a PC) heals other party members because it directly benefits the cleric, the party and/or the cleric's diety. If the cohort provides services for other PCs, it needs to be at the bidding of the cohort's PC. Not the GM, not the other PCs! If the PC on control of the cohort deems a particular piece of the loot useful to the cohort, the PC needs to obtain the item and gift/provide it to the cohort.
That's fine and dandy.
Then don't expect the cohort to help out anyone else since he is the sole responsibility of the player that took the feat.
Shallowsoul, you see this as a black and white issue. The cleric will heal the cohort because it helps out the party as whole. The cleric does not expect payment for these services unless they come at a great material cost. The cohort is the sole responsibility of the PC who took the feat, but that doesn't mean you or your cohort should be a douchebag about the loot. It's as if the cleric takes the extra channeling feat to help the party, but suddenly wants more gold/loot because he/she did so or the barbarian taking extra rage to be able to cut down the party's enemies better, faster, and for longer, and expecting the party to pay for. You took a feat to aid you, and indirectly aid the party by making you better, and now you are wanting an extra share of the loot to pay. Your other PCs aren't demanding extra loot for helping you. Why are you for helping them?
|
|
Shallowsoul, you see this as a black and white issue. The cleric will heal the cohort because it helps out the party as whole. The cleric does not expect payment for these services unless they come at a great material cost. The cohort is the sole responsibility of the PC who took the feat, but that doesn't mean you or your cohort should be a douchebag about the loot. It's as if the cleric takes the extra channeling feat to help the party, but suddenly wants more gold/loot because he/she did so or the barbarian taking extra rage to be able to cut down the party's enemies better, faster, and for longer, and expecting the party to pay for. You took a feat to aid you, and indirectly aid the party by making you better, and now you are wanting an extra share of the loot to pay. Your other PCs aren't demanding extra loot for helping you. Why are you for helping them?
If you're not willing to pay the cohort then why should he help or stick his neck out for you?
I'm never said he willingly would. I said all aid to others should come as a direct benefit to the cohort or the cohort's PC. Any other aid should come at the bidding of the cohort's PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has been said, numerous times, and even though the one that started this thread has argued against me on several points and then stated what I have said at other times, I will state this one last time.
A COHORT SHOULD NOT GET A SHARE, EQUAL OR NOT, OF THE PARTY'S LOOT!!!
A cohort is loyal to the one and ONLY the one PC. The one PC is responsible for the cohort, equiping, feeding, clothing, healing him/her, and no one else's responsibilty. The cohort in service of the one PC should only act in favor of other PCs only if it directly benefits him/her (the cohort) or the PC in control of the cohort. The cleric (a PC) heals other party members because it directly benefits the cleric, the party and/or the cleric's diety. If the cohort provides services for other PCs, it needs to be at the bidding of the cohort's PC. Not the GM, not the other PCs! If the PC on control of the cohort deems a particular piece of the loot useful to the cohort, the PC needs to obtain the item and gift/provide it to the cohort.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I find a couple of flaws in your reasoning.
Firstly, the GM is ultimately in control of the cohort. It's still an NPC.
Secondly, while the cohort is loyal to the PC that "recruited" him, unless the game is exceptionally one-dimensional, that cohort will form relationships with the other PCs. While his ultimate loyalty is to the PC with the Leadership feat, to say that he is always and only the sole responsibility of the recruiting character is nonsense. If the cohort provides services to the other PCs, it needs to be because the cohort wants or has to. Yes, he is subordinate to one particular character, but a cohort that is nothing but an extension of the Leader's will is a poorly played cohort indeed.
And finally, if the party deems a particular bit of loot useful to the cohort, I see absolutely no reason that any one PC in the party should go into some sort of debt to the party to obtain it.
How the party chooses to divide loot is their business. If that means the cohort's items come out of the Leader's share, fine. If the cohort gets an equal share, fine. But there is not one single overarching rule that exists to determine who gets what in every game of Pathfinder on the planet - each party must decide that for themselves.
One flaw with that... Your Firstly. The cohort is NOT a NPC. It is a secondary PC to the Player's primary PC and is in no way affected by the GM any different than a standerd PC. Other than that, you hold valid points. All my games, we, as a party, freely gave items to the person we believed would benefit most from them. As for coin, jewels, gems, art, or other non-specific loot, we divided up equally between the PCs and the cohort's wealth came from the PC with the leadership feat. Without the Leadership feat, the cohort would never exist in the party. If the PC with the leadership feat dies, the cohort ceases to function as part of the party. Though in such cases, the Player was asked if he wished to use the cohort as his new PC. If not, the cohort left at first chance & only then becoming an NPC.
A cohort is generally an NPC with class levels, while followers are typically lower level NPCs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to suggest it's an NPC.
Edit: That method you cite seems to be quite a fair way to split loot for a party with a cohort in it.
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.
False, a druid in 3.5 can't choose, but in PF you choose an animal companion or a Domain.
|
|
How the party chooses to divide loot is their business. If that means the cohort's items come out of the Leader's share, fine. If the cohort gets an equal share, fine. But there is not one single overarching rule that exists to determine who gets what in every game of Pathfinder on the planet - each party must decide that for themselves.
Slade is searching, as a GM, for that "overarching rule", or to be more honest as already decided what it is and want to impose it to his players. And that is part of the reason why most of us are so vehemently against his position.
Most of us see the decision of how a cohort should be paid as something that should be decided between the players and characters and that no single player or character can impose to the others. The second in which the GM has his engraved in stone reply that will be pushed upon the players regardless of the players intention people start pushing back.
How the party chooses to divide loot is their business. If that means the cohort's items come out of the Leader's share, fine. If the cohort gets an equal share, fine. But there is not one single overarching rule that exists to determine who gets what in every game of Pathfinder on the planet - each party must decide that for themselves.Slade is searching, as a GM, for that "overarching rule", or to be more honest as already decided what it is and want to impose it to his players. And that is part of the reason why most of us are so vehemently against his position.
Most of us see the decision of how a cohort should be paid as something that should be decided between the players and characters and that no single player or character can impose to the others. The second in which the GM has his engraved in stone reply that will be pushed upon the players regardless of the players intention people start pushing back.
Always good to see something I can agree with. I'm vehemently opposed to three things in this thread:
1) Anyone claiming that the GM should take any stance whatsoever in loot distribution.
2) Anyone claiming that a cohort must get an equal share of the treasure.
3) Anyone claiming that a cohort must not get any share at all.
How "your" gaming group does it is up to them. I actually couldn't care less where in the spectrum of options they fall. My group tend to fall somewhere close to the method given by Craig Frankum, but to somehow suggest that any method chosen by a group is somehow "wrong" really gets my hackles up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I really want to throw my two cents in here, but I can't think of anything to say that hasn't already been said, other than the fact that this entire thread could basically be the script to "Wargaming vs. Roleplaying: The Movie".
Stay classy, everybody.