Revisiting Leadership.

Rystil Arden · May 18, 2007

IcyCool said:
True, but a "normal" cohort would be constantly gaining xp as well, which could be spent. However I see your point, my point about would let the cohort both spend xp AND level. Perhaps that is too much. Although with a 25 point buy cohort ...

I'm not sure I agree with your numbers, but I will say this: If someone's PC has to stay at the Inn because your torch boy is coming along, that is, in my opinion, unacceptable. Perhaps that is not a popular or commonly held opinion in LEW.

To put a bit of perspective on it, I don't like cohorts, never have. I've seen them allow one player to eat up far too much of the spotlight. Leadership is also usually a no-brainer feat (it's that good). For those reasons I really don't allow it anymore.

And that's a perfectly 100% reasonable view. That's why you would disallow the cohort in that instance. On the other hand, I was only able to run my Crux of the Matter adventure because of a cohort--otherwise there would not have been enough appropriate-level PCs (and no healers!) around to play the adventure.

Rystil Arden · May 18, 2007

So from your experience, the PC deaths in LEW have had little penalty? (For what it is worth, I'll add that Gorefoot's death was similar to your experiences, in that he gained enough xp to make up the level loss instantly.)

I think Velmont agrees that the PCs suffered a severe penalty--they leveled back up the lost level, but they failed to advance a level (a huge penalty for so much time spent). However, the cohort would suffer no penalty under your proposal so long as the PC leveled. That's all Velmont is saying.

IcyCool · May 18, 2007

Rystil Arden said:
<plenty of good abuses>

Yep, I think your method is probably best for XP gain.

Velmont · May 18, 2007

IcyCool said:
So from your experience, the PC deaths in LEW have had little penalty? (For what it is worth, I'll add that Gorefoot's death was similar to your experiences, in that he gained enough xp to make up the level loss instantly.)

Not exactly. But teh death of a cohort will make it lose a level. but Because of your #4, he will instantly gain back that level (and most likely, another level) because the master will gain a level at that moment.

IcyCool · May 18, 2007

Rystil Arden said:
And that's a perfectly 100% reasonable view. That's why you would disallow the cohort in that instance. On the other hand, I was only able to run my Crux of the Matter adventure because of a cohort--otherwise there would not have been enough appropriate-level PCs (and no healers!) around to play the adventure.

Which is the flip side of my argument, and is pretty much guaranteed to happen at least once (and already has) in LEW. And that's a fine time to include a cohort. At least it's better than everyone staying at the Inn rather than adventuring.

That said, I think I'd still be against upping the point buy for cohorts from 25 to 28. Not so long ago, the PCs in LEW were 28 point buy. And without all of the splatbook material available, the "level disparity" between the point buys is, IMO, less.

IcyCool · May 18, 2007

Velmont said:
Not exactly. But teh death of a cohort will make it lose a level. but Because of your #4, he will instantly gain back that level (and most likely, another level) because the master will gain a level at that moment.

Yep, RA explained that above. I agree, that would be very open to abuse. Like I said, I didn't exactly think it through, I was simply making a quick suggestion.

Rystil Arden · May 18, 2007

IcyCool said:
Which is the flip side of my argument, and is pretty much guaranteed to happen at least once (and already has) in LEW. And that's a fine time to include a cohort. At least it's better than everyone staying at the Inn rather than adventuring.

That said, I think I'd still be against upping the point buy for cohorts from 25 to 28. Not so long ago, the PCs in LEW were 28 point buy. And without all of the splatbook material available, the "level disparity" between the point buys is, IMO, less.

I do agree that the level disparity between PBs is less than with splats. This is one reason why it won't be an issue for the PCs if the cohorts have 28 PB--if anything, I predict that the extra 3 PB will pretty much always be used to increase cohort survivability (with the lower HD, the cohort needs even more Con than usual, for instance).

Bront · May 18, 2007

IcyCool said:
I'm not sure I agree with your numbers, but I will say this: If someone's PC has to stay at the Inn because your torch boy is coming along, that is, in my opinion, unacceptable. Perhaps that is not a popular or commonly held opinion in LEW.

My point was that if the low level PC is in danger of being overshadowed by a Cohort, he's in danger of being overshadowed by the Cohort's Leader himself, and therefore likely shouldn't go on the adventure, regardless of leadership feats.

IcyCool · May 19, 2007

Bront said:
My point was that if the low level PC is in danger of being overshadowed by a Cohort, he's in danger of being overshadowed by the Cohort's Leader himself, and therefore likely shouldn't go on the adventure, regardless of leadership feats.

Of course at that point the PC isn't just competing with another PC for spotlight time (which is the norm), but he is also competing with the torch boy.

Bront · May 19, 2007

IcyCool said:
Of course at that point the PC isn't just competing with another PC for spotlight time (which is the norm), but he is also competing with the torch boy.

True, but often the Cohort is more of a supliment than an alternate character, so it's likely you won't get much spotlight seeking time from the pool boy.