Revisiting Leadership.

Rae ArdGaoth said:

DC 14 isn't great, but L4 characters have magic items too, even cohorts. More points would definitely make the character better/more effective/more survivable, I obviously agree there. The question is should they be? It's not fair to compare a L4 cohort's effectiveness/survivability against a L6 challenge to a L6 leader's effectiveness/survivability against that same challenge. Of course the cohort will fare worse, I mean, technically the cohort's supposed to be kind of like a player controlled NPC, right? He's two levels lower and he's got worse stats, so yeah, he'll get blown away. That's why, hopefully, the wizard cohort is staying in the back, away from the fighter Leader, like any smart wizard would do when faced with a particularly challenging or dangerous encounter. (My own wizard, Fimble, is not staying in the back, which is probably going to bite him in the rear soon. =P)

Click to expand...

A Fireball's radius is large enough that you almost never get that choice, and it sucks if your cohort is just going to die on the enemy's first turn every time.

I think that the cohort should indeed be more survivable. The cohort is intrinsically forced to face encounters appropriate for PCs two levels higher than the cohort--I think that's enough to keep the cohort down, and if there are total lowbies in the same adventure, a GM can think about disallowing the cohort. Crippling the point buy in addition doesn't sit well with me. I've always thought this, as I came into the picture after the current cohort rules (which I think suck) were already passed, but I never cared enough to start a thread.

As for cohorts having equipment, I invite you to look at Hogarth's equipment. He has ~2000 GP worth of stuff as a level 6 character, and most of that is healing wands/potions/scrolls (the rest is full plate mail). My level 4 Telepath has substantially more wealth. This results because when treasure is being split up, I'm guessing people don't want to give the PC with the cohort more loot just because of the cohort being there, so the cohort gets castaways and hand-me-downs.

How exactly are cohorts supposed to be awarded treasure? 2000gp seems like an awfully paltry amount for a L6 character.

You're right, 2 levels is a significant handicap. Also, Hogarth is a L6 cleric on an adventure filled with mostly... L6'ers, right? So he's more likely to live than a wizard. I admit, I am being swayed to your side. So are you thinking 30, or 28? Personally, I think if we do it, we should do it all the way, so 30.

Like I said, the most important thing is to have fun. I want Vanitri to be able to start his Free Folk caravan, and I don't want Bront to feel discouraged from developing his character. However, I don't want his fun to come at the expense of another players'. So let's make it very clear to DM's and PC's that cohorts are meant to be supplements to PC's, not PC's in their own right. A DM or another Player who feels that a cohort is taking too much stage time should feel comfortable in asking the Leader's Player to back off a bit.

I definitely don't want to make it a rule, but I'll strongly suggest that the terms of Leadership and the cohort be addressed at the beginning of any adventure with a Leader PC.

Rae ArdGaoth said:

How exactly are cohorts supposed to be awarded treasure? 2000gp seems like an awfully paltry amount for a L6 character.

You're right, 2 levels is a significant handicap. Also, Hogarth is a L6 cleric on an adventure filled with mostly... L6'ers, right? So he's more likely to live than a wizard. I admit, I am being swayed to your side. So are you thinking 30, or 28? Personally, I think if we do it, we should do it all the way, so 30.

Like I said, the most important thing is to have fun. I want Vanitri to be able to start his Free Folk caravan, and I don't want Bront to feel discouraged from developing his character. However, I don't want his fun to come at the expense of another players'. So let's make it very clear to DM's and PC's that cohorts are meant to be supplements to PC's, not PC's in their own right. A DM or another Player who feels that a cohort is taking too much stage time should feel comfortable in asking the Leader's Player to back off a bit.

I definitely don't want to make it a rule, but I'll strongly suggest that the terms of Leadership and the cohort be addressed at the beginning of any adventure with a Leader PC.

Click to expand...

Hogarth is a level 6 (barely--thanks to the crappy cohort XP rules, he was stuck at 5 for most of the adventure) Cleric in an adventure where most of the characters are level 7 and 8 (Ashnar, who also died, was level 6 also due to dieing previously). Also, of note, Hogarth just died, despite the Cleric's substantial d8 HD.

Interesting thoughts--I'm liking the ideas in your post, including the 30 PB and the GM leeway to ask the player to back off it need be.

Rystil said:

And she still gets disabled or knocked out by accident in the AoE by a trivial challenge. With 5 more points, she could have 16 Con (and then maybe 10 Str) which would put her up to 25 HP. That's the first point where she survives the trivial 6d6 Fireball.

Click to expand...

She also can get disabled by the fireball. The fireball would have a DC of what, 16? Her reflex save is +3 so she saves 40% of the time. The damage on a 6d6 fireball averages 21 so will only exceed 21 about half the time. I agree it is no fun to get knocked out 30% of the time in CR appropriate encounters, but not every encounter has area effects either.

Bront said:

That example dumps all non-esental stats though, so there's no real flavor in the Cohort either. And, as a wizard, that caster's marginal direct effectiveness is negligable (DC14 save on a 2nd level spell isn't that exciting vs 6th level opponents). The 28 point buy turns that into 10,14,14,16,10,10, which isn't that much better, but the cohort can at least carry something, and cast a bit more effectively. Of course, you could be a bit more flexable and go 8,14,14,16,12,10 or even the odd 8,14,14,16,8,14.

Click to expand...

A failed save, even for 2nd level spells, means you are in big trouble. I don't really think challenges for the PC should be failing saves against spells from the cohort very often. There are plenty of other ways to contribute directly with magic missles, rays, and spells with a partial effect even on a save.
I agree that the lack of flexibility could be a problem, but if you want a more unusual stat array, 9, 14, 14, 14, 8, 14 isn't so bad either.

Rystil said:

As for cohorts having equipment, I invite you to look at Hogarth's equipment. He has ~2000 GP worth of stuff as a level 6 character, and most of that is healing wands/potions/scrolls (the rest is full plate mail). My level 4 Telepath has substantially more wealth. This results because when treasure is being split up, I'm guessing people don't want to give the PC with the cohort more loot just because of the cohort being there, so the cohort gets castaways and hand-me-downs.

Click to expand...

This seems like a much bigger problem for survivability than the point buy. There is probably not any good way to address this directly, so I guess if you're thinking the point buy needs to increase to remedy this problem, then I can support that.

I think my biggest problem would be with a caster cohort with a 17 or 18 in the casting stat, because it seems like a focused PC of equal level should better than the cohort. The 25 point buy pretty much negates any 17's or 18's. Would it be reasonable to give a 30 point buy, but cap abilities at 16?

SlagMortar said:

This seems like a much bigger problem for survivability than the point buy. There is probably not any good way to address this directly, so I guess if you're thinking the point buy needs to increase to remedy this problem, then I can support that.

Click to expand...

I agree, and that's exactly what I was thinking, actually.

SlagMortar said:

I think my biggest problem would be with a caster cohort with a 17 or 18 in the casting stat, because it seems like a focused PC of equal level should better than the cohort. The 25 point buy pretty much negates any 17's or 18's. Would it be reasonable to give a 30 point buy, but cap abilities at 16?

Click to expand...

Good point, and a good fix. The purpose of raising the stat points is to make the cohort more survivable, not more awesome. The stat cap would only apply at character creation, correct? And what about racial modifiers?

Good point, and a good fix. The purpose of raising the stat points is to make the cohort more survivable, not more awesome. The stat cap would only apply at character creation, correct? And what about racial modifiers?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking at creation before racial modifiers. Basically I was thinking you can only spend 10 points from the point buy on any one attribute.

SlagMortar said:

I think my biggest problem would be with a caster cohort with a 17 or 18 in the casting stat, because it seems like a focused PC of equal level should better than the cohort. The 25 point buy pretty much negates any 17's or 18's. Would it be reasonable to give a 30 point buy, but cap abilities at 16?

Click to expand...

That's specificly targeted at casters though.

If I built Mook, the Half-Orc Fighter, he COULD have a strength of 20, but now you've capped it at 16. His strength of 20 would help make up for his 2 level deficiency as a fighter (lower BAB, less feats, etc). Of course, with 25 points, you wouldn't have much left to go to 20 anyway, with 28 or 30 you could do it, but it's still costly (It's the point buy system, it's what happens).

You're still forgetting the 2 level drop in spells. The cohort has less spells, lower level spells, and even with a higher casting stat, saves are still lower (see the lower level spells). Not to mention the fact that 5 points only brings a 15 to a 17. You get less for your points if you spend them like that. If they go for high stats, they have to sacrifice somewhere else. I don't see that as a problem.

As far as gear goes, on initial creation, I'd expect them to be a bit undergeared, but then, so are many of the LEW players. After creation, they find whatever they find in the world, which means players can spend money on them, they get shares of the goodies (though I'd generaly feel players would get first dibs on the cool stuff) so it can adjust to more survivable after creation. Attributes are permanent, so you're just kinda screwed.

Bront said:

That's specificly targeted at casters though.

If I built Mook, the Half-Orc Fighter, he COULD have a strength of 20, but now you've capped it at 16. His strength of 20 would help make up for his 2 level deficiency as a fighter (lower BAB, less feats, etc). Of course, with 25 points, you wouldn't have much left to go to 20 anyway, with 28 or 30 you could do it, but it's still costly (It's the point buy system, it's what happens).

Click to expand...

I meant 16 before racial adjustments so it would only be capped at 20.

As I understand it, the goal of the difference in point buy between PCs and cohorts was to make it so a cohort was weaker than another player's PC of equal level. The goal of the proposal to increase point buy is to increase the survivability of a cohort. I would still like to preserve the fiirst goal while also meeting the second goal.

You're still forgetting the 2 level drop in spells. The cohort has less spells, lower level spells, and even with a higher casting stat, saves are still lower (see the lower level spells).

Click to expand...

I'm not forgetting the 2 level drop in spells, I'm comparing a cohort with a PC (played by a different player) of equal level.

Bront said:

If they go for high stats, they have to sacrifice somewhere else. I don't see that as a problem.

Click to expand...

The same could be said for a 25 point buy. My opinion is that if we increase the point buy, it should be to increase the survivability of the cohort, not increase the offensive output of the cohort.

It's also true that I've seen greedy casters go for the 18 in a 25 PB scheme, with some terribly boring character like--8 11 14 18 8 8. It's easier to do that for a cohort, where you typically don't care as much for the charisma because she's on the sidelines or the strength if the PC can carry spare stuff. Since they could make a cohort with an 18 anyway in 25 PB, I don't see why we should limit them in 30 PB. They'll wind up with something like 8 14 14 18 10 8 or 8 12 16 18 8 8.

They pay high dividends in several other stats for that high Int, and actually, that creates a cohort that will let the other PCs shine more than a cohort without such glaring weaknesses in other stats, since the cohort will be totally sidelined except for in areas dealing with their one 18. But what if one of the other PCs is a really low level character of exactly the same class as the cohort? Well then the GM can choose not to allow the cohort that time--the guy hiring at the inn could even say "Hey, we don't need two fledgling Wizards on this adventure". And if the party is totally lacking that class? Then the cohort is a life-saver, even though she's two levels too low. Honestly, I think the overspecialised cohort is actually better for the spotlight problem, particularly the cohort that spends 100% of points on casting stat and then Con/Dex for survival. Your opinion may vary, of course.

Rae ArdGaoth said:

Personally, I think if we do it, we should do it all the way, so 30.

Click to expand...

Nice, it lets the people who want cohorts to be powerhouses get their cake, and the people who don't like having a 3 character limit get to eat it.

Er... wait.

I think allowing a cohort at 30 PB is definitely a mistake, and allowing a cohort at 28 PB is probably a mistake. At 30 PB, you can have up to 6 characters (provided 3 of them are lvl 6 or above)! Granted, they have to adventure in pairs, but that just means twice the fun, right?