If you have a Cohort from the Leadership feat, as he levels up, is his equipment supposed to be subtracted from your own wealth (according to the Character Wealth by Level table) or does he gets his own equipment, apart from your wealth, as in the party actually finds more treasure to supply the Cohort's share?
I'm inclined to think the Cohort gets his own wealth apart from yours since he's supposed to be equivalent to any creature 2 levels below yours. If you choose to have a tiger mount as a Cohort, it won't need any equipment to function, and if you get a human fighter instead, he should have his own equipment to also be able to funciton just like any other creature of the same power level that doesn't have equipment.
I know, logically, it doesn't make any sense finding more treasure just because you have another party member, but that is how treasure is determined in this game. Even if a group of level 5 players find a mountain of gold, they are still supposed to only be able to buy 10,500g worth of equipment, each, so even with all that gold they won't be able to find any +10 weapons to buy, only +2.
I agree. The cohort should have some wealth depending on their level before they join you, though if you're a leader you ought to be spending some of your loot on your cohort and followers to help them out. After all, they'll be aiding you, so it makes sense to make sure they can do their jobs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The leadership feat recommends equipping a cohort via NPC wealth. As I understand it, this influx when the cohort is first introduced is entirely their own and does not come from your own money. From there on, if it wants gear, it's your responsibility to do so. The party should not feel compelled to pitch to your cohort though they can certainly do so. When I've taken leadership, I've asked for my cohort.
As to mountains of gold, if you let your players stumble upon them and only say they can take so much, it stunts the sense of wonder and entire point of having actual mountains of gold. My advice is to not gift them mountains of gold when they can only realize molehills.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have them join with NPC wealth-by-level, if they're just showing up. If they're already established NPCs, they have what they have (whether that's top-end gear or virtually nothing).
Once they've joined, though, it's up to the party to supply them, however the party wants to do so. If that's out of your share, so be it. I don't really keep PCs pegged to Wealth by Level, though, and the parties in my campaigns tend to be pretty well-off.
As for added loot, I tend to treat every two cohorts as a PC for encounter design and XP. So there's probably a bit of extra loot too.
That's just my way, though. :)
|
Contributor
|
Legends of the Shining Jewel, a network campaign that allows the Leadership feat under it's own rules for it.LSJ?
And as for treasure shares, yeah. As a GM, I leave it to the group. My groups tend toward treating them as PCs - full share, pick of useful items, etc. :)
What's a "network campaign"? Like a third-party organized play system?
I allow Leadership with NPC wbl which updates AS THEY LEVEL also. If the PC wants to give them more on top of that, it comes out of that PCs share.
It works pretty well in my game.
My understanding of the rules, however, is that they show up with equipment as per npc rules, and then after that it's up to the PC to give them new gear.
Imo the cohort should either get part of a share or wbl from the leading PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As written, they are NPCs, so start with NPC gear. After that... up to the group.
My group doesn't give extra to people with Leadership, it helps keep it under control... After all, from a players perspective:
"It isn't MY follower, why should I give him MY money?" :)
Consider these two scenarios:
1. A PC reaches level 7 and gains a feat. He chooses, oh, let's say Toughness. Now he has a few more HP.
Should the GM increase the APL based on this feat? No.
Should the GM use stronger monsters based on this feat? No.
Should the GM give out more XP based on this feat? No.
Should the GM give out more treasure based on this feat? No.
2. A PC reaches level 7 and gains a feat. He chooses Leadership and now he has a cohort.
Should the GM increase the APL based on this feat? No.
Should the GM use stronger monsters based on this feat? No.
Should the GM give out more XP based on this feat? No.
Should the GM give out more treasure based on this feat? No.
The answers are all the same.
But...
Assuming the cohort travels with the PC and his party, and assuming the cohort is useful in combat, then here's the reality:
Should the GM increase the APL based on this feat? Probably not worth a whole bump in APL but recognizing that the party is now something like 7.5 instead of a flat 7 might help plan encounters a little better.
Should the GM use stronger monsters based on this feat? Probably. If he doesn't, then every encounter will feel too easy. Bigger/harder encounters mean (usually) more XP and loot (see below).
Should the GM give out more XP based on this feat? Yes (hopefully because of bigger or more monsters). The cohort gets a share of the XP and if there is not more to go around, then everybody slows down - that might not make many players happy.
Should the GM give out more treasure based on this feat? Probably. The cohort gets his share. Arguably, it ALL comes from the PC who took the Leadership feat, but if he's splitting his share for his cohort, he'll end up below his expected WBL. This is compensated by his cohort's wealth and contribution, so maybe that's not an issue. But in practice, many groups give the weak items to the cohort even if they are not exactly part of that PC's personal share - which ultimately reduces WBL for everyone in the group.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the game that I am playing with a cohort, we have 3 PC's and the cohort. When we find treasure, first we decide if anyone wants to keep any of the items including the cohort and give out things to the person that needs it the most. When we divide sold gear/gold we divide by 4 with each PC getting a share, and the forth share divided in half, half toward a group fund (for raise dead, spell scribing, ect), and the other half of the share going to the cohort. This has worked very well for our group.
I can't find the links right now but...
Companions come with wealth equal to Wealth By Level for an NPC (of that level). Afterwhich, it is your responsibility to equip them, or to work out a deal with your party to let them in on the share of the wealth. However, most parties will not agree to sharing the wealth (and they shouldn't have to) since you effectively get more than your share of the wealth if allowed to do so. So, most times you will end up needing to equip your cohort with your share of the wealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should the GM give out more XP based on this feat? Yes (hopefully because of bigger or more monsters). The cohort gets a share of the XP and if there is not more to go around, then everybody slows down - that might not make many players happy.
I agree with the rest, but this bit's not right.
A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party's XP. Instead, divide the cohort's level by your level. Multiply this result by the total XP awarded to you, then add that number of experience points to the cohort's total.
I've always allowed my pc's cohort to have normal starting wealth when the character takes the leadership feat, but after that the pc must provide any additional gear.
NPC wealth by level is the standard. A lot of Cohorts end up over-equipped according to that metric because they end up with hand-me-downs from the PCs.
It isn't really fair to make those hand me downs count against NPC wealth by level because then you end up with a weird situation where the rules say that you shouldn't give your squire that sword you aren't using anymore even though it makes perfect sense in the story.
I let NPC wealth be the baseline at the time the cohort is created and let PC hand me downs do the rest. I've never seen a cohort that never got any of the PCs treasure.
So get a cohort at full NPC wealth, and then get a new one as you level up, thus getting better gear each level. Or pick a cohort that doesn't need much gear to be effective.
This could be a little off-topic, but it involves the leadership feat.
It states that followers are folks with NPC class levels. In one of the other hardcovers (can't remember off the top of my head which) it says, that any character above 5th level usually has class levels instead of an NPC class. Should that apply to followers as well, or is it beyond the scope of the feat?
If you have the character levels, and high charisma, having a high enough leadership score for 6th level characters is not uncommon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find the links right now but...
Companions come with wealth equal to Wealth By Level for an NPC (of that level). Afterwhich, it is your responsibility to equip them, or to work out a deal with your party to let them in on the share of the wealth. However, most parties will not agree to sharing the wealth (and they shouldn't have to) since you effectively get more than your share of the wealth if allowed to do so. So, most times you will end up needing to equip your cohort with your share of the wealth.
In my experience, how willing the party is to give the cohort an extra share depends a lot on what kind of cohort it is. The wizard's dedicated meat shield fighter is a lot less likely to get a group share than a healing-focused cleric of group-buffing bard.
So get a cohort at full NPC wealth, and then get a new one as you level up, thus getting better gear each level. Or pick a cohort that doesn't need much gear to be effective.
This is exactly why I just allow cohorts to automagically increase their (NPC) WBL when they gain levels.
They still occasionally get hand-me-downs, but for the most part, use their own (much lesser) gear.
It has worked from level 7 all the way to 19 without issues. Not by the rules, exactly, but technically there isn't anything preventing you from dismissing and rehiring a new cohort anyway...
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So get a cohort at full NPC wealth, and then get a new one as you level up, thus getting better gear each level. Or pick a cohort that doesn't need much gear to be effective.This is exactly why I just allow cohorts to automagically increase their (NPC) WBL when they gain levels.
They still occasionally get hand-me-downs, but for the most part, use their own (much lesser) gear.
It has worked from level 7 all the way to 19 without issues. Not by the rules, exactly, but technically there isn't anything preventing you from dismissing and rehiring a new cohort anyway...
If you want to be really pedantic, there is nothing I can see allowing you to dismiss a cohort at all. You could make the argument that you could stop bringing them along and tell them to go away, but that doesn't let you replace them. Personally I think that's a bit silly, but wanted to point it out.
Luckily my players would never try this, but someone who kept ending friendships just to get a new minion with better gear, like some elitist MMO raider telling a team member they can't participate due to one gear piece not being BiS, would certainly start taking at least the "aloofness" penalty to their leadership score.
In the games I play the GM designs the cohort anyway, but the player levels him up. So I guess you'd be giving up that control in the name of new gear.
I've been tempted to just redesign the Leadership feat altogether. In my next game I will likely restrict cohorts to NPC classes, 15 or 20 point buy...
Still worth taking. Still way better than a lot of feats.
But that is a whole other conversation. :D
As written, they are NPCs, so start with NPC gear. After that... up to the group.
My group doesn't give extra to people with Leadership, it helps keep it under control... After all, from a players perspective:
"It isn't MY follower, why should I give him MY money?" :)
My reply to this has always been, "You're not my Leader, why should I cast a cure spell on you?"
If you aren't willing to share a portion of the treasure with my cohort, don't expect my cohort to help you.
As written, they are NPCs, so start with NPC gear. After that... up to the group.
My group doesn't give extra to people with Leadership, it helps keep it under control... After all, from a players perspective:
"It isn't MY follower, why should I give him MY money?" :)
My reply to this has always been, "You're not my Leader, why should I cast a cure spell on you?"
If you aren't willing to share a portion of the treasure with my cohort, don't expect my cohort to help you.
A valid response I suppose... another part of why Leadership can be annoying, it affects players who DON'T take it negatively... in several ways.
The person who took the feat usually gives their cohort extra gear, the cohorts usually help. We haven't really run into a situation where a cohort has refused help simply because they aren't being granted a full share... I wonder how my players would deal with that...
For me, as a player, I wouldn't grant a cohort a share of the treasure, I would expect their leader to do it from their share. If the cohort didn't help the group, the group would no longer be expected to help the cohort. Things would degrade fast. I was merely talking about money. We always go to great lengths to keep cohorts alive in combat, we just don't give money to them unless they are OUR cohorts.
|
It matters the cohort, but if it is someone who 'works' for the character with Leadership I see it as fair for the player to pay something to the NPC and help keep them properly equip. More the player should pay attention to how they have their character treats the NPC and a DM should play the NPC as if they were an actual person. This would actually help discourage the player from abusing the Leadership feat and allow it to actually have worth from a roleplaying stand point.
A cohort will not blindly or foolishly follow a player's character with Leadership, especially if the NPC isn't treated well and given proper reward for the service they give to the party. This being where roleplaying comes in, as if the player thinks of the NPC as a person and not a resource it would allow reason for the cohort to stick around... with this would come, at least in part, the player sharing his wealth or even the party's wealth to a lesser extent because the cohort has actually provided something and should be given something in turn.
This, in my eyes, is how Leadership should be considered in use. For a cohort to be treated as a person, not a resource such as a spell, potion, or magic item.
I wouldn't expect a PC with a cohort to get a bigger share of the wealth anymore than I would a PC with an animal companion to get a bigger share of the wealth. Both have a financial challenge of equipping a second body, but that is part and parcel of those abilities.
Now, certainly in some cases I could see a party agreeing to all chip in for an item that an NPC cohort would use, just as they might all chip in for an item that a PC would use, but would benefit everyone. The most basic example, is a party jointly buying a CLW wand that they will all receive benefits from as needed.
So a PC with leadership will probably have less 'bling' on his person than a PC without it, just as a druid might have less, because their tiger companion has some of the druids wealth in his awesome battle-cat barding, but they still have the same general treasure, just that it is in different places. This isn't any more broken than the fact that the fighter will probably spend a larger portion of his wealth on a weapon than the wizard will.
|
|
It's really much easier to simply remove the feat entirely and provide additional NPC assistance when PCs require or ask for it. It solves all problems with WBL and APL calculations I think.
I am one who as I DM would see error in removing the Leadership feat, not only because it could be seen at least as far back as 2e AD&D but because it has merit for roleplaying. More, many of the so called problems That I have seen leave me feeling it can be taken care of reasonably if the DM and player take a moment to consider what is being offered... such as not allowing a player have his followers join in an adventure and only allowing no more then 2 or three cohorts. More importantly, have it that the DM controls the cohorts and followers as is his right for NPCs.
Or you could just use the Leadership Handbook rules from Everyman Gaming (the short version: Everyone gets the Leadership feat for free, you can have lots of cohorts, but the party can only have one cohort along at a time). It's brilliant.
Seriously worth the price if you want Leadership to mean something - which reminds me, I really need to edit my review based on the revised version.
|
|
I treat the cohort as an apprentice. I always gave them 1 WBL, the young template, and they start with NPC levels that can be trained away by the character who took the leadership feat by spending an appropriate amount of time retraining with the cohort based on the retraining rules. The caveat is that the cohort can only train into certain classes based on what NPC class the cohort was and what class they were:
Classes are broke down into scores for both PC and NPC:
Ex:
Fighter: Martial 3 Skill 0 Arcane 0 Divine 0
Barbarian: Martial 2 Skill 1 Arcane 0 Divine 0
Rogue: Martial 0 Skill 3 Arcane 0 Divine 0
Wizard: Martial 0 Skill 0 Arcane 3 Divine 0
Cleric: Martial 0 Skill 0 Arcane 0 Divine 3
Bard: Martial 1 Skill 1 Arcane 1 Divine 0
Adept Martial 0 Skill 0 Arcane 0 Divine 1
Noble Martial 0 Skill 0 Arcane 0 Divine 0(starts with 2000 GP for being a noble)
Expert Martial 0 Skill 1 Magic 0 Divine 0
Warrior Martial 1 Skill 0 Magic 0 Divine 0
Commoner(counts as having 1 in any of the trainer's choice)
etc.
So you must reach the score with your and your companions combined scores and must use your companions score for them to take levels in that class from you retraining them.
Ex:
Johnny the Wizard(MA0S0M3D0) takes Brandy the Warrior(MA1S0M0D0)
Johnny trains Brandy in the ways of magic so she could take levels in a class that has 1 martial and 2 magic(the only one being Magus)
if instead Johnny took Billy the Commoner(any 1) then Billy could take levels in any class that has 1 point in the casters choice and up to 3 in arcane(allowing for Billy to also take wizard, magus, arcanist, etc.)
I treat the cohort as an apprentice.
[snip lots of legalese]
Well, that approach certainly looks like a solution in search of a problem.
I am one who as I DM would see error in removing the Leadership feat ... because it has merit for roleplaying.
I see it as the exact opposite: it replaces roleplaying with a mathematical mechanic. Rather than rewarding good roleplaying where a character wanders into town, spreads rumors that he's looking to hire a certain kind of expert, interviews candidates, and decides on a candidate who then becomes a traveling companion and right-hand-man, we now have a mechanic where a player simply writes a feat on his character sheet, does some math to figure out the level of his cohort, then writes one up - no roleplaying needed at all.
Sure, I get it. A good DM/Player will roleplay the interaction with the new cohort. If they want to - it's definitely not required.
I'm sure you do this, or you wouldn't have called it roleplaying.
But the old-school version (where no such feat/ability existed and everyone just had to roleplay their way into hiring a companion, e.g. henchman or hireling) was, by it's very lack of mechanics, much more roleplaying oriented.
As written, they are NPCs, so start with NPC gear. After that... up to the group.
My group doesn't give extra to people with Leadership, it helps keep it under control... After all, from a players perspective:
"It isn't MY follower, why should I give him MY money?" :)
My reply to this has always been, "You're not my Leader, why should I cast a cure spell on you?"
If you aren't willing to share a portion of the treasure with my cohort, don't expect my cohort to help you.
A valid response I suppose... another part of why Leadership can be annoying, it affects players who DON'T take it negatively... in several ways.
The person who took the feat usually gives their cohort extra gear, the cohorts usually help. We haven't really run into a situation where a cohort has refused help simply because they aren't being granted a full share... I wonder how my players would deal with that...
For me, as a player, I wouldn't grant a cohort a share of the treasure, I would expect their leader to do it from their share. If the cohort didn't help the group, the group would no longer be expected to help the cohort. Things would degrade fast. I was merely talking about money. We always go to great lengths to keep cohorts alive in combat, we just don't give money to them unless they are OUR cohorts.
Cohorts normally get half shares (they are 2 levels lower) so in a party of 4, instead of getting PCs getting 1/4 (25%) of the treasure, they get 2/9 (22%).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cohorts normally get half shares
I think some of you guys are missing the point. It's only natural/logical/obvious that cohorts will get a share of the treasure, they are not slaves and it's not like I expect their share to fall from the sky either. The question is, does their share impacts on your expected wealth, according to your level, or does the feat simply gives you a "companion" creature, 2 levels lower than you, power wise, regardless if the creature requires equipment or not. Again, if I choose to have a dragon mount as a cohort, is it supposed to get a share of my treasure?
What someone said ealier made sense to me, if a cohort dies and you get a new one, it will come with his own equipment, likewise, if you get the Leadership feat at level 20 instead of level 7, you'll be saving around 500,000g.
I think that, since the party is considerably more powerfull with a cohort, the GM should probably have to raise the monsters power level accordingly, and as such the treasure will also be greater, so, the players should still maintain their expected character wealth and the mere presence of the cohort will be providing the extra treasure that will be his share, enough to maintain his expected cohort wealth.
Just because the cohort expects to get some treasure it doesn't mean it has to come out of your share, the GM can just adjust the treasure so that everyone gets their expected share, according to the Character Wealth by Level table.
|
I am one who as I DM would see error in removing the Leadership feat, not only because it could be seen at least as far back as 2e AD&D but because it has merit for roleplaying. More, many of the so called problems That I have seen leave me feeling it can be taken care of reasonably if the DM and player take a moment to consider what is being offered... such as not allowing a player have his followers join in an adventure and only allowing no more then 2 or three cohorts. More importantly, have it that the DM controls the cohorts and followers as is his right for NPCs.
It provides very little to roleplaying. Sure, some players might roleplay their interactions and everything, but let's face it, they can do so with regular NPCs also. Nothing stops them from asking for help or paying for assistance. Not to mention that social checks are completely irrelevant if I understood right. NPCs just hop in and join you free of charge.
Entire feat is more trouble then it's worth it. It increases your GM workload exponentially high. I won't even mention what happens when you add Leadership to NPC.
Leadership is the veritable Marmite of feats: you either love it or hate it.
But it is still just a feat, and its use needs to be considered carefully by any GM, since giving free reign over numerous NPCs to a player can be unbalancing to a game.
Some points that need considering before you allow the leadership feat:
Vital Strike or Improved Critical: These two feats bracket Leadership in terms of prerequisites, and you wouldn't adjust encounters or treasure for them, so why would you do so for Leadership?
Action Economy: without a doubt adding a cohort to a party shifts the action economy even further in the favour of the PCs, making single foe that much weaker. Even if you're not upping the CR of encounters to account for the cohort, strongly consider using larger numbers of weaker foes to mitigate the power multiplier of a cohort.
Recruitment: taking the Leadership feat does not grant you a cohort and followers. It allows you to attract them. Think about what a character needs to do so that he can get someone to follow him around. If he wants a cleric, he can't just walk into the nearest temple and shout out during mass "which one of you is coming with me?" The character with Leadership needs to put in the ground work to persuade someone to come with him (the Leadership Handbook has a number of options for this, ranging from simple mechanics to purely roleplayed, which could be used by any style of player with the GMs blessing).
Companion: A cohort should be a companion, ally, and friend. The cohort should want to go adventuring with the PC. The cohort is Robin, not Alfred the butler. Even if the player stats up the perfect stay-at-home NPC, it's still an NPC, and ultimately under the GM's control. Make him follow the party, after all he wants to be with his friend. Yes, even if it might kill him because he's not actually with the party. PCs don't leave their other feats at home, so they shouldn't leave this one, either.
That's all I've got for now, might come up with more, later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because the cohort expects to get some treasure it doesn't mean it has to come out of your share, the GM can just adjust the treasure so that everyone gets their expected share, according to the Character Wealth by Level table.
I disagree entirely with anything resembling "...but I have a cohort, so that chest needs to have 15% more treasure than it says in the AP".
That said, the math here is surprisingly simple:
Option A: cohort gets same share (full, half or whatever) of loot and xp. The gold/xp ratio for players is not changed and they stay on whatever WBL track they were on before getting a cohort. Essentially 20% less xp and 20% less gold is balanced by 25% more mobs
Option B: cohort gets 'free xp' but a share of the party loot. Compared to above, this 'free xp' makes them level slightly faster but doesn't come with free gold. Net result: slight drop in WBL.
But seem from a different perspective: the inherent value of the Cohort increases, so option B is perfectly fair.
Cohorts normally get half shares (they are 2 levels lower) so in a party of 4, instead of getting PCs getting 1/4 (25%) of the treasure, they get 2/9 (22%).As written, they are NPCs, so start with NPC gear. After that... up to the group.
My group doesn't give extra to people with Leadership, it helps keep it under control... After all, from a players perspective:
"It isn't MY follower, why should I give him MY money?" :)
My reply to this has always been, "You're not my Leader, why should I cast a cure spell on you?"
If you aren't willing to share a portion of the treasure with my cohort, don't expect my cohort to help you.
A valid response I suppose... another part of why Leadership can be annoying, it affects players who DON'T take it negatively... in several ways.
The person who took the feat usually gives their cohort extra gear, the cohorts usually help. We haven't really run into a situation where a cohort has refused help simply because they aren't being granted a full share... I wonder how my players would deal with that...
For me, as a player, I wouldn't grant a cohort a share of the treasure, I would expect their leader to do it from their share. If the cohort didn't help the group, the group would no longer be expected to help the cohort. Things would degrade fast. I was merely talking about money. We always go to great lengths to keep cohorts alive in combat, we just don't give money to them unless they are OUR cohorts.
Where is that?
I saw an entry for XP, but not treasure...
I think to answer the original question, Cohorts start with wealth appropriate to their level when they first show up (as per NPC rules) but according to the feat, that's it!
After that, it is up to the group to decide how to reward them, unless I'm mistaken, I haven't seen _rules_ regarding this.
In our group, we simply add to their WBL whenever they level, it seems to be the simplest approach so far. Players who DON'T take Leadership sometimes resent having to part with their share of the treasure, some are okay with it. Our solution of just arbitrarily adding to their NPC WBL has worked so far.
Any gear the feat-taker wants to give their follower has come out of their own share, and so far this has been working, no complaints at the table.
Option A: cohort gets same share (full, half or whatever) of loot and xp. The gold/xp ratio for players is not changed and they stay on whatever WBL track they were on before getting a cohort. Essentially 20% less xp and 20% less gold is balanced by 25% more mobs
Option B: cohort gets 'free xp' but a share of the party loot. Compared to above, this 'free xp' makes them level slightly faster but doesn't come with free gold. Net result: slight drop in WBL.
Option C: every PC gets equal shares and remains at WBL. PC with the cohort uses some of his wealth to increase the effectiveness of his cohort if he wishes. Just like every other PC uses wealth to increase the effectiveness of class abilities and feats that they have.
As a GM When I do allow the leadership feat and cohorts, I don't give extra gold for the cohort. What I do, is after the players divvy up how much each player should get when they split the gold, I tell the player with the cohort that the cohort has found a percentage of the amount given to each player. Usually, its the difference from pc to npc wealth by level.
Aparantly, I was mistaken about the cohort's wealth, I thought they had the same amount of equipment as a PC of the same level, but it seems their wealth is determined by the NPC gear table as Heroic NPCs, right? If so, this makes thing much easier.
We all have our opinions, some think the cohort's gold should come out of the player's share, some think it should be paid by the whole party, depending on the cohort's funciton, and some may think that it's assumed the cohort got some share of the treasure to pay for his basic gear as he adventures with the party, corresponding to his level, but these are all opinions.
I was hoping that, since Leadership is such a powerfull feat, the Devs could straighten out the facts.
Cohorts normally get half shares (they are 2 levels lower) so in a party of 4, instead of getting PCs getting 1/4 (25%) of the treasure, they get 2/9 (22%).As written, they are NPCs, so start with NPC gear. After that... up to the group.
My group doesn't give extra to people with Leadership, it helps keep it under control... After all, from a players perspective:
"It isn't MY follower, why should I give him MY money?" :)
My reply to this has always been, "You're not my Leader, why should I cast a cure spell on you?"
If you aren't willing to share a portion of the treasure with my cohort, don't expect my cohort to help you.
A valid response I suppose... another part of why Leadership can be annoying, it affects players who DON'T take it negatively... in several ways.
The person who took the feat usually gives their cohort extra gear, the cohorts usually help. We haven't really run into a situation where a cohort has refused help simply because they aren't being granted a full share... I wonder how my players would deal with that...
For me, as a player, I wouldn't grant a cohort a share of the treasure, I would expect their leader to do it from their share. If the cohort didn't help the group, the group would no longer be expected to help the cohort. Things would degrade fast. I was merely talking about money. We always go to great lengths to keep cohorts alive in combat, we just don't give money to them unless they are OUR cohorts.
Where is that?
I saw an entry for XP, but not treasure...
It's not a rule, but how my group plays.
|
|
If he's a Wizard or some other arcane caster, chop out virtually all of that in favor of maybe an extra spellbook or two-- fifty gold tops.
You are forgetting the cost of material components, especially expensive components. That would go a long way in keeping wizards in check, both for the player's character if theya re such and the NPC cohort.