Vow of Poverty and Cohorts

[irdeggman]

Are you abusing vow of poverty by giving a part of you loot to the cohort. My answer is no you are not. As long that you are not giving him all his share of the loot but only what you would do under normal circumstances (GMs should point out if they don't think this is done by the VoP charector). The cohort does not benefit from the VoP so why should it suffer from the drawbacks. You do not gain a better Cohort by doing this but you are keeping status quo. Neither is it against the spirit of WoP. A WoP character that does not give a cohort his fair share of the loot for it’s work is cruel. Not very exalted.

This is one of the reasons that both VoP (as in all of BoED) and Leadership feat are considered "optional" and have "warnings" for the DM before using/allowing them in a game.

There is a lot to consider before allowing either of them in a game and evenmore if both are allowed.


If it is the house-rule that the PC pays for his cohort out of his share (all of the time) then this is consistent with that rule. But it is outside what the DMG considers to be the default on this issue. It is sort of a bypass of the intent of the vow too since in essence the ascetic is "hiring" someone to work for him, which he can't really do per the intent of the vow. His treasure must go to the "needy" and not to making his life easier (which is what having a hireling is about - isn't it?)

If the PC is giving his cohort treasure out of his share in addition to what the cohort would normally get - this is clearly a rules violation (and truely against the spirit of the vow) It is similar to giving a different PC the ascetic's share of treasure (because the ascetic can't keep it anyway).

 

[Dargon]

If it is the house-rule that the PC pays for his cohort out of his share (all of the time) then this is consistent with that rule. But it is outside what the DMG considers to be the default on this issue. It is sort of a bypass of the intent of the vow too since in essence the ascetic is "hiring" someone to work for him, which he can't really do per the intent of the vow. His treasure must go to the "needy" and not to making his life easier (which is what having a hireling is about - isn't it?)

True if the cohort is "hired" but take the example that the cohort has sworn to follow the PC for one reason or another, then it is not “hired” anymore, the pc should still give to the cohort,
Or the cohort should take it him self.
The issue is who has ownership of the share to the cohort. I would say the cohort.

 

[irdeggman]

True if the cohort is "hired" but take the example that the cohort has sworn to follow the PC for one reason or another, then it is not “hired” anymore, the pc should still give to the cohort,
Or the cohort should take it him self.
The issue is who has ownership of the share to the cohort. I would say the cohort.

If the cohort has sworn to follow the PC then he has also sworn ro do it for "free". Then anything given by the PC is more than the cohort would have had before.

Which is pretty much the reason the default rule is that the cohort gets his own share (at a 1/2 share rate) when treasure is divided and not a portion of the PC's share (as in his leader's).

IMO a very strong case could be made that the cohort has (or should) likewise taken the VoP in order to be more like his "leader/teacher" than otherwise.

 

[Dargon]

If the cohort has sworn to follow the PC then he has also sworn ro do it for "free". Then anything given by the PC is more than the cohort would have had before.

would say that the cohort has sworn to someone else and is joining the party on that account but rereading the leadership feat, shoots down that way of thinking.

Which is pretty much the reason the default rule is that the cohort gets his own share (at a 1/2 share rate) when treasure is divided and not a portion of the PC's share (as in his leader's).

so the answer to the OP's 2nd question is Yes.

 

[Drowbane]

IME, a cohort either gets a reduced (half or quarter) share or uses his/her abilities only on self and thier "master".

On the otherhand, I'd rather give a Cohort VoP than most of my PCs... VoP is more of a an RP thing unless you're in a low-wealth (read: magic) campaign.

My current PC (N/E, tyvm) gives his cohort a small cut of his Wealth... roughly enough to double what he gets for NPC wealth (not sure what the RAW is, nor do I care, regarding cohort wealth - they are afterall "NPCs" - but my group gives them NPC wealth by level).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yeah, that is the default rule. For example, if 4 men + 1 cohort party gets 4,500gp. Each PCs get 1,000 gp and the VoP guy donate/charity that 1,000gp. On the other hand the cohort gets 500 gp and if he does not have VoP, he can buy appropriate gear by using those money.

Under the "easy calculation" method described, the cohort only gets 450, and the PCs each get 1012.5.

-Hyp.

 

[Jack Simth]

IMO a very strong case could be made that the cohort has (or should) likewise taken the VoP in order to be more like his "leader/teacher" than otherwise.

Probably the best solution, really - plus you can have the followers be a "distribution network" who do the nitty-gritty of the charity.

 

[carborundum]

One character with the Vow is more than enough for me! I vaguely remember telling the player that if the cohort was man enough to take the Vow he'd have became an adventurer himself and not just a hanger-on.

Plus, it doesn't exactly make the Savage Tide campaign easy with a holier-than-thou character in the mix. At some stage he'll leave the party once it's time to make difficult choices. The player is aware of the themes of the campaign and has a plan for a dramatic exit and a funky replacement character. It's a long way down the line though, so first we have to sort out the cohort pay/ share issue. Looks like I'll make the player get the other guys to agree to a cohort getting a half share.

 

[akbearfoot]

One character with the Vow is more than enough for me! I vaguely remember telling the player that if the cohort was man enough to take the Vow he'd have became an adventurer himself and not just a hanger-on.

Plus, it doesn't exactly make the Savage Tide campaign easy with a holier-than-thou character in the mix. At some stage he'll leave the party once it's time to make difficult choices. The player is aware of the themes of the campaign and has a plan for a dramatic exit and a funky replacement character. It's a long way down the line though, so first we have to sort out the cohort pay/ share issue. Looks like I'll make the player get the other guys to agree to a cohort getting a half share.

I often times pre-make replacement characters in games, on the off chance that I die, or am in the mood to play something else.

However, I'd probably be a little miffed at the notion that I would be 'forced' to change characters, due to roleplaying restrictions or otherwise. This may not be the actual case, but that is what it sounded like from your statement.

My vote is for the cohort to get his full half-share from the total treasure pile. The VoP PCs full share gets garnished right off the top to the charity of his choice.

So all this PC needs to do is take divine metamagic and he will have all 3 of the most powerful feats in the game....neat. Tell him to just take greenbound summoning if he wants to win so bad

 

[carborundum]

Luckily (I think) he also asked to take the UA Variant with Monk's fast movement and WIS for AC, hence giving up Wildshape. At least the inamous Celestial Triceratops with Natural Spell is out of the picture. Now I have a superfast halfling giving flanking and being untouchable, but not doing much damage.
Tactically fun but with a Touch AC of 22 at 6th level, irritating for bad guys.

Basically, the most ignore him pretty quickly, but I complain to the player quite often that he's a major difficulty. Everyone happy.