I have a question regarding the wording of a vital element of the Leadership feat.
"Caused the death of a cohort".. My understanding of this is that it is enough that a cohort has been killed while in the company of the PC with the feat. The PC does not have to be at fault for this. Do I interpret this correctly?
The rules are not clear. As a GM I would have to say poor decision making or putting the cohort into a dangerous situation. The cohort rolling poorly that day should not penalize the PC in my opinion.
Example: You direct your cohort to flank a creature with reach, knowing the cohort has no acrobatic, and low AC. The monster crits, and kills the cohort. Since you put him into a bad situation that would be your fault.
Now if the party is ambushed and 2 mages drop fireball spells, almost rolling max damage and the cohort just rolls poorly then I would not fault you for it.
Hmm.. in this case it was a really, really difficult battle,and the party contemplated running away several times. The cohort in question was placed in the forefront of the battle with the BBEG and certainly saved the Leader's life by being his meat shield, so to speak.
So, not necessarily poor decision making, but definitely putting him into a dangerous situation. They were not ambushed, but knew fully well this could be a lethal situation.
Hmm.. in this case it was a really, really difficult battle,and the party contemplated running away several times. The cohort in question was placed in the forefront of the battle with the BBEG and certainly saved the Leader's life by being his meat shield, so to speak.
So, not necessarily poor decision making, but definitely putting him into a dangerous situation. They were not ambushed, but knew fully well this could be a lethal situation.
If the leader told him to be up front I think he would be at fault for putting him in that situation.
If the Cohort was acting as "meat shield" against the BBEG I'd probably class this as causing the death of a cohort. There's nothing to say you can't resurrect/reincarnate to get them back and negate the penalty though.
|
I think some of it depends on the cohort I mean are you a squishy mage and your cohort a big burly barbarian? then him being frontline I would imagine was assumed. By no means the leaders fault. Was it the first time ever the cohort was in a position, again if every other battle along the way this has been operating procedure than I see no fault.
IF he was told to hold the line while you all ran.. well that is another matter.
I think some of it depends on the cohort I mean are you a squishy mage and your cohort a big burly barbarian? then him being frontline I would imagine was assumed. By no means the leaders fault. Was it the first time ever the cohort was in a position, again if every other battle along the way this has been operating procedure than I see no fault.
IF he was told to hold the line while you all ran.. well that is another matter.
Good point about it being his job, but the decision to run away could have been made sooner.
PS: I think another factor should be the amount of damage he was taking compared to most fights. If he was holding his own I might let it go, but if he was clearly outmatched and likely to die then the penalty would likely apply if I was the GM.
I would see this as at least part an RP issue. Your Leadership score goes down because potential new cohorts know that they are not the first cohort and the previous one died.
Because of that the question that has to be asked is: Would a new cohort feel the situation when the other cohort died is a reason not to join the leader?
I don't think that it depends on how the cohort died. It's just the fact that he/she died when the PC tries to find another one.
PC: "So, you wanna join?"
NPC: "Yeah, well, don't know. I heard your last three cohorts died."
PC: "That's true, but it wasn't my fault. I gave them clear orders not to get themselves into a dangerous situation, but somehow they ignored me."
NPC: "Ok... I - I will think about it. I'll call you."
^^^ This IMO
The Leader was a Gnome Bard and the cohort was a trained gorilla that I allowed him to give class levels as a Barbarian when he decided to take Leadership. It made storyline sense and the gorilla needed the levels to survive accompanying the group. At first they were low-level and the gnome needed someone to carry his gear. As they leveled, the gorilla became useless in battle until he gained the levels in Barbarian.
They had fought this BBEG before, and he almost killed the main fighter in one round (granted, the fighter fumbled, fell and got blinded due to a critical miss), allowing the BBEG with four attacks to power attack.. anyway, they knew he was dangerous. Maybe "meat shield" was the wrong term, but I feel that he sacrificed himself to let his leader live.
And yeah, it's the reputation thing as well. If the Leader has a tendency to bring his cohorts into danger, maybe that is enough? As of now, I don't think it matters much as he will still receive a 5h level cohort due to the max 2 levels below rule, but if more cohorts start falling..
In that case, I think PETA will want to have a word with him.
Interesting. If it were my game I wouldn’t penalize anyone based on the information you’ve offered around the situation. Adventurers (and any cohorts, Animal companions, hirelings, etc) are by their very nature willfully placing themselves in what we’d consider dangerous and possibly life-threatening situations all the time. That’s what they do. They know the risks when they sign on. They accept those risks for any number of reasons.
1. We’re talking about a Bard. A typically second rank, support class. Bard’s make everyone around them better at what they do. The cohort (as a gorilla with class levels in Barb) is a front line smasher who’s job, if you will, is to rush headlong into combat and by virtue of that expose themselves to “mortal peril” each and every time combat takes place. If my tanky front liner dies I don’t look at my healer or other support class and say, “Look at what you did!!”
2. It sounds like the BBEG was going to be challenging regardless of anything the player, and party, might have done. Are you willing to set the precedent that anything short of fleeing by the party was tactically an incorrect decision? And does the Bard own sole responsibility for that decision?
3. And this easily for me could have ended the conversation immediately:
“Maybe "meat shield" was the wrong term, but I feel that he sacrificed himself to let his leader live.”
It’s the word sacrifice that leaps out at me. Sacrifice suggests voluntary choice on the part of the cohort to accept the risk of the situation so that others need not. The fact that you yourself say that that’s what you believe happened suggests to me that your Bard player has no direct personal responsibility attached to the cohorts choice to die so that others might live.
My two cents.
If the Cohort was acting as "meat shield" against the BBEG I'd probably class this as causing the death of a cohort. There's nothing to say you can't resurrect/reincarnate to get them back and negate the penalty though.
Technically, there's nothing to say that resurrecting the cohort negates the penalty. The cohort still died.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, there's nothing to say that resurrecting the cohort negates the penalty. The cohort still died.
Technically nothing says it has to be your cohort that died either.
Taken to a silly extreme, you could be penalized for killing the bad guy's cohort. As well as not get any XP for the fight since the cohort was just part of the bad guy's feat selection.