Leadership: Do you have to share your own wealth with your Cohort?

[Kchaka]

randomwalker wrote:

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.

Dave Justus wrote:

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.

What if the PC doesn't wish to use his wealth to increase the effectiveness of his cohort? Will the cohort leave?

Are the PCs with cohorts then obligated to "invest" some of their wealth in order to keep the cohort? How much should this minimum investment be in order to "keep your Feat"?

I don't wanna feel cheated by the other PC who got the Leadership feat at level 20 and didn't have to spend 90,000g (11% of level 20 WBL) on his cohort, so I'd rather if the minimum investment were 0g, but if the minimum to keep the cohort is just enough to the corresponding wealth according to the Heroic NPC gear table, then I think it's manageable.

For example, if at the end of the adventure a 10th level PC (WBL: 62k) advances to the 11th (WBL: 82k) and his 8th level cohort (Heroic NPC Gear: 7,800g) advances to the 9th (Heroic NPC Gear: 10,050g), the PC would just have to give the cohort the difference, 2,250g, out of the 20k of his share, a little over 12% in this case.

At lower levels, the cohorts Heroic NPC gear represents around 15% of the PC's share of the treasure, and it decreases towards 10% as the levels go up.

If we follow the Heroic NPC gear table as the cohort's wealth, he'll still be extremily undergeared, but at least the PC will have the choice weather if he wishes to equip his cohort to improve him, or not.

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

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.

I like this option, or something like this. It's not like the PC is getting extra gold, he won't be able to touch that gold. The Heroic NPC gear won't even be enough to keep the cohort from getting slaughtered in combat, and if the cohort leaves or dies, that part of the gold will be "lost" in the process.

[Cavall]

Why don't you just let people's alignments role play out the choice of how they want to share the treasure and let the game be played?

I can't imagine a party of lawful good treating it the same as neutral evil. Or an order of the Cockatrice (if you want to use classes too) thinking that's ok either. Which means "creating rules" for something that is entirely up to the people playing to talk about.

This should be the choice of the party by the party. The game runner shouldn't have to manage anything here other than raising the point up for discussion.

[kestral287]

JonathonWilder wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

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.

Few good Wizard spells require expensive material components, and they get a pouch with the cheap stuff free. Worst-case, you're afraid of Sunder so you buy five more pouches. 75 gold tops? Even that's stretching beyond "base functionality".

Regardless the point stands: Base functionality for a cohort, as compared to an animal companion, is tiny. Even the high-end is ~1500 gold, which at 7th level is nothing.

If we want to talk about them getting gear above what a similar class feature should get, then why does the Paladin's mount not get a share of loot? Seems like the mount should get exactly 25-1500 gp (as necessary for the cohort to function) less gold than the Cohort does, over the life of an adventure. Same for Druid companions, Eidolons, and familiars.

[wraithstrike]

The rules don't say what to do. I would let the party know that I was putting in extra loot to account for the NPC.

How I would do it-->This is gamist, but what I would likely do was put in loot or gold at around the time the cohort was about to level that would match what he was supposed to have.

[Albatoonoe]

I, for one, allow the feat. Never had any problems with it.

As for how to handle the distribution with wealth, I'm fine with abstracting it. A large portion of Pathfinder is abstraction, so what's a little more?

As someone up thread said, they can "find" their own gold on the adventure that brings them through the NPC wealth levels. Their loot would not impact the loot players find. This seems like the best way to keep everyone satisfied. And if the player wants the cohort to have a little extra, it can come out of his share.

[Meiliken]

I generally have always made my cohorts either a creature, like a dragon to ride or some some such, or a opposite gender of the race of my character. The first one so it is easier since dragons tend to have access to their hoards, so you don't have to worry about equipping them(they have their own hoards afterall). The 2nd part is more for a roleplaying aspect. The leader and cohort end up having a romance, marry, and then of course, they become a viable member of the party(you wouldn't abandon your spouse right? Right?). One time I even had a dragon cohort that had alter self, married the dragon, and had half dragon babies, effectively combining both and setting the precedence for a generational storyline. Next campaign the character would be the child of the previous one.

[Matthew Downie]

Question 1: Should the GM add more wealth to support the NPC?

As far as I know, no Adventure Path has ever suggested adding more wealth if there are more characters, be they PC or NPC allies. More characters means the group is more powerful. Adding more wealth would make them more powerful still, causing further balance problems. So the implied 'official' answer is probably no.

Question 2: Should the rest of the party give a share of the wealth to the cohort?

There are no rules for this aspect of the game. It is up to the players to sort out the distribution of wealth - who pays for wands of healing that everyone benefits from, and so forth.
There is certainly no requirement that anyone give up a share of their wealth to a cohort, but they are free to do so if they wish.

[wraithstrike]

APs are not rules sources for the core game. They also dont address why a cohort that starts at level 9 should have less loot than one that survived to level 9. They will never address it as a general rule because they are not a rules source. Many people that allow leadership dont have balance problems with it.

With regard to question 2 it is not the party's responsibility to provide for that NPC. If the GM is not going to provide loot that player needs to figure out how he is going to take care of the situation. Unless the other players have agreed in advance he has no right to complain even if the cohort helps the party members anymore than a druid should expect help equipping his animal companion.

[Devilkiller]

I don't think that cohorts should receive a direct share of the party's treasure when loot is split. Giving the cohort "hand me down" items like the +1 ring you throw into the party pot when you find a +2 ring might make sense, but I'd expect that all PCs would get serviced first before cohorts, familiars, etc. If the PC with Leadership ends up a little behind other PCs in WBL this is probably a good thing since having a cohort is a huge benefit. If you want the party to help out equipping your cohort that's probably likely to work out best if the equipment in question might directly benefit the PCs. For instance, if you have a Cleric cohort and want help buying a Phylactery of Positive Channeling you'll probably have way better luck seeking donations than if you're looking to buy the same cohort a holy +1 mace (even though killing monsters faster might presumably save your allies more HP than the +2d6 on channel energy would help to restore)

Whether or not a cohort will leave if the PC doesn't provide good enough gear would probably depend a lot on the cohort in question, but I'd consider applying a modifier to a PC's Leadership score for being especially generous or stingy in this regards. A tougher question can sometimes be how much gear the cohort needs just to stay alive. Being around higher level combats is dangerous business for somebody a few levels behind equipped with NPC WBL.

[Sara Marie]

Shortened thread title to resolve display issue.