[3.5] Cohorts no longer gobble up party XP

[Celtavian]

re

IME, having played with multiple cohorts, there has to be some other disadvantage to having an cohort than taking a feat. The feat is taken one time, but the cohort is constantly getting better.

For example, my Paladin currently has a Cleric cohort that is only 2 levels behind him. The Cleric not only helps tremendously during the battle through healing, but also creates scrolls and magic items during downtime for future adventures.

He is also is quite powerful when turning undead and helping to buff up the party when preparing for battle. He is exactly like having an additional party member.

If that is the case, than the Leadership feat is the most powerful feat in the book. The only disadvantage was that the cohort took a share of the xp. If that cohort takes no xp, than for one feat, you just acquired the feats of the other character, his or her ability to make items, his or her ability to do melee combat, etc, etc. The feat is not at all balanced for what it gives.

There should be some disadvantage for taking the Leadership besides the loss of a feat slot. An extra cohort only a few levels behind in level is exceedingly powerful, moreso than any other feat in the game. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

 

[Bauglir]

I agree that there should be a price. I don't agree however about the entire party paying the price for one character's bonus.

What if there was a powerful magic weapon wielded by the fighter, which extracted a daily toll in xp from the whole party in order to keep fully powered (involuntarily, as long as the sword is around). How long would they put up with THAT?

 

[Pax]

Re: re

IME, having played with multiple cohorts, there has to be some other disadvantage to having an cohort than taking a feat. The feat is taken one time, but the cohort is constantly getting better.

For example, my Paladin currently has a Cleric cohort that is only 2 levels behind him. The Cleric not only helps tremendously during the battle through healing, but also creates scrolls and magic items during downtime for future adventures.

Funny; the rules for Leadership in the DMG specifically say Cohorts and Followers will not make magic items for the PC leader. Yet I keep seeing peopel talk about cohorts making X, Y, and Z magic items "for the party" as justification for why there should be a "higher cost" for havign the cohort.

He is also is quite powerful when turning undead and helping to buff up the party when preparing for battle. He is exactly like having an additional party member.

Actually, he's probably no better than -- and potentially WORSE than -- the Paladin. Paladins Turn as a cleric of 2 levels lower, and frankly, I'd expect a paladin to have at least SLIGHTLY better Charisma than a cleric.

Let us not forget, the cohort only has NPC wealth; for a PC to keep their cohort competitively equipped, they are taking costs THERE, too -- by surrendering some of THEIR loot. That means the leader-PC has less of his OWN gear.

If that is the case, than the Leadership feat is the most powerful feat in the book. The only disadvantage was that the cohort took a share of the xp. If that cohort takes no xp, than for one feat, you just acquired the feats of the other character, his or her ability to make items, his or her ability to do melee combat, etc, etc. The feat is not at all balanced for what it gives.

Let's put it this way: if you and I were players in the same game, why in the hell should I get less experience, because you decided you wanted to take the leadership feat?

Answer: I shouldn't.

There should be some disadvantage for taking the Leadership besides the loss of a feat slot. An extra cohort only a few levels behind in level is exceedingly powerful, moreso than any other feat in the game. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

Rarely will the Cohort be "only a few levels behind" -- you're talking high-Charisma characters.

And since Charisma doesn't do much ELSE for most classes, putting a high attribute there is it's OWN additional cost.

 

[Staffan]

The idea of granting exp to the cohort is important when the cohort is many levels below the person who took leadership... a 9th level character might only have a leadership score of 5 (low charisma, bad experiences in the past etc. etc.) so that his cohort originally arrives at a much lower level than him. For the sake of argument, lets guess at 5th level.

If the cohort levels up at the same time as his master, he will always stay that far behind. At least by giving him a share of xps he has the chance to make up the gap a little, thus becoming more useful.

As I understand it, in the new system the cohort will be getting a fraction of the leader's XP in relation to their levels - a 7th level cohort of a 10th level leader will be getting 7/10ths of the XP. Given the way the D&D XP system works (where you need X*1000 XP in order to go from level X to level X+1), this means that the cohort will stay the same number of levels behind.

 

[Numion]

Re: re

IME, having played with multiple cohorts, there has to be some other disadvantage to having an cohort than taking a feat. The feat is taken one time, but the cohort is constantly getting better.

Other feats get more powerful too. Spell Focus, for example, is used more because wizards get more spells per day, and is generally better, since also the spells get better at higher levels. So, some feats are meant to get better with levels.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: re

Rarely will the Cohort be "only a few levels behind" -- you're talking high-Charisma characters.

And since Charisma doesn't do much ELSE for most classes, putting a high attribute there is it's OWN additional cost.

[blink] I wouldn't waste a feat on Leadership if I weren't a Paladin, Sorcerer, Bard, or maybe a Cha-Monkey Cleric or Rogue.

I don't think I've ever picked up a cohort more than one level behind the character's level...

-Hyp.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: re

Funny; the rules for Leadership in the DMG specifically say Cohorts and Followers will not make magic items for the PC leader. Yet I keep seeing peopel talk about cohorts making X, Y, and Z magic items "for the party" as justification for why there should be a "higher cost" for havign the cohort.

Please post page number. Everything I have just read on Leadership or Cohorts indicate that they can do everything a character can.

Actually, he's probably no better than -- and potentially WORSE than -- the Paladin. Paladins Turn as a cleric of 2 levels lower, and frankly, I'd expect a paladin to have at least SLIGHTLY better Charisma than a cleric.

He has the Sun domain and good Charisma. He is a little better at turning.

Let us not forget, the cohort only has NPC wealth; for a PC to keep their cohort competitively equipped, they are taking costs THERE, too -- by surrendering some of THEIR loot. That means the leader-PC has less of his OWN gear.

I don't know about you, but my group generally picks up alot of extra loot and treats my cohort as a true member of the party. As in they outfit with gear as good as they can give him. He gets alot of hand me downs, and when the party outfits for an adventure, they outfit him as well.

Why? Because he contributes alot to healing and helping the party survive.

Let's put it this way: if you and I were players in the same game, why in the hell should I get less experience, because you decided you wanted to take the leadership feat?

Answer: I shouldn't.

Because he helps you survive. He heals you when the party cleric might not be able to for whatever reason. He casts all those nice buff spells like Death Ward and Protection from Elements on you when we are preparing for a major battle and the main cleric only has so many spells.

He is loyal to the party. He busts his ass to make sure the party survives as well as his leader because he is a "real" person in the roleplaying sense that has a personality and desire to make sure all the members of the party survive, even to the extent that he will give his own life.

My cohort is a cleric of Lathander serving a Paladin of Lathander. He is not some self-serving, automaton that helps only my Paladin. He serves my Paladin, but he does what any good Cleric of Lathander would do: Help whoever needs help.

Rarely will the Cohort be "only a few levels behind" -- you're talking high-Charisma characters.

And since Charisma doesn't do much ELSE for most classes, putting a high attribute there is it's OWN additional cost. [/B]

I'm a Paladin. You have to remember. They receive a half-share of exp, which means they will level up quicker the farther apart they are so that they reach a fairly effective level for helping the party.

 

[Celtavian]

I agree that there should be a price. I don't agree however about the entire party paying the price for one character's bonus.

What if there was a powerful magic weapon wielded by the fighter, which extracted a daily toll in xp from the whole party in order to keep fully powered (involuntarily, as long as the sword is around). How long would they put up with THAT?

A cohort helps the whole party directly, at least mine does. I could see if the cohort refused to help anyone else but the player who led him, but only the most selfish cohorts would do such a thing. I wouldn't want a self-centered cohort in my group for more than just taking a share of my xp.

Cohorts are not a an item. If you are playing them like some extraneous item, then you are not fully developing the cohort.

My cohort is a full developed character. He has a personality, a name, and is genuinely fond of the other party members. He has went out of his way to save other party members lives more than once. He talks with PC cleric about what strategies they will employ when it comes to casting spells.

He is friends with the party, though he serves my character. The way some of you make it sound, your cohorts are slaves. I guess that is one type of cohort, though I wouldn't be surprised if he jumped ship on you at the first opportunity if he wasn't well-treated.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: re

Other feats get more powerful too. Spell Focus, for example, is used more because wizards get more spells per day, and is generally better, since also the spells get better at higher levels. So, some feats are meant to get better with levels.

No feat increases in power like a Cohort gaining levels and benefits of those levels. Higher level spells, more special abilities, etc, etc.



Hypersmurf,

Its all about the roleplaying. Cohorts are mostly taken by high charisma characters, but I only take cohorts if it fits the character.

My Paladin is a knight. His cohort is the traveling priest that helps him fight evil and convert folk to following Lathander. We are a walking church of Lathander.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: re

Hypersmurf,

Its all about the roleplaying. Cohorts are mostly taken by high charisma characters, but I only take cohorts if it fits the character.

Yup. And who fits the Leadership role better than someone with a strong "force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, and ability to lead"?

Just like I expect Combat Reflexes to be a feat favoured by people with high Dex, I expect Leadership to be favoured by people with high Cha.

I don't expect to see cohorts 4 levels behind the party average very often.

-Hyp.