[3.5] Cohorts no longer gobble up party XP

[Pax]

I find it kind of interesting that a lot of the arguements against cohorts is that they "suck" up the party exp and that the other players in the group are at a disadvantage. I find this interesting because IMC we usually value the STORY over any exp/loot that is acquired. If it makes sense in the STORY that player X has a cohort, then none of the players ever feel shortchanged when and if they get smaller amounts of exp from an encounter.

The point is that, for X risk, I should get X reward -- and what OTHER PC's select for feats should not reduce OR increase that reward.

Aragorn: Frodo, can we ditch Merry and Pippin, I would have leveled by now if it weren' for them...

LOL

Meriadoc and Peregrin were not Frodo's cohorts; if anyone of the nine walkers were, it was Samwise.

Merry and Pippin weere full members of the party sent out from Rivendell -- because Elrond said so. PC or NPC, they weren't there because Frodo had the Leadership feat.

 

[Henry]

I find it kind of interesting that a lot of the arguements against cohorts is that they "suck" up the party exp and that the other players in the group are at a disadvantage. I find this interesting because IMC we usually value the STORY over any exp/loot that is acquired. If it makes sense in the STORY that player X has a cohort, then none of the players ever feel shortchanged when and if they get smaller amounts of exp from an encounter.

While playing with the story in mind is a good thing, many players do not play with the story first and foremost, which means that story is not as effective a game balance. One reason IMO that 3E was such a big hit was because most of its rules are mathematically driven, rather than story-driven, and have generally sound reasoning behind most of them.

Wizards' R&D team's focus is first and foremost on the rules, which benefits both story-driven and non-story-driven groups alike. Whereas a story-driven group may not care about such eccentricities as where an NPC henchman's share of the XP and the loot is coming from, and can use more forgiving rules for such, groups who are not story-driven will need guidelines to follow.

Therefore, along the same lines as the time-honored axiom that "it is easier to get forgiveness than permission," it is easier for a DM to let Cohorts level when the master does, or to simply let them take a share of the group XP, than to let that be the default rule for all groups everwhere.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

I too used the "level the cohort when the character leveled" rule. Seems to get rid of all that confusion. As far as magic items are concerned, just keep track of how much XP got burned. Now the cohort does not level until the character levels + whatever burned XP was used.

Later.

 

[Aaron2]

Re: Re: re

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.

What is the difference between a party of three 7th level characters who gain a 5th level cohort and another party of three 7th level character who gain a new player with a 5th level character. Why should the first group still get 1/3 shares while the second gets 1/4 shares?

Ideally, a cohort should allow the party to earn more XP in direct proportion to the 1/2 share that they take. Under the new rules, that is impossible. The cohort only results in an easier time for the PCs. With no downside.


Aaron

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Sucking up xp?

If the DM uses 3.0 by the book and the players have an iota of teamwork, it is almost an absolute certaintly that the cohort will contribute to the party's overall power & safety disproportionate to the modest cost in xp and money. (I can think of a few of fellow PCs that I would love to replace with a useful and obedient cohort...if bang for the \buck were of primary import. )

I agree the 3.5 rule is hokey because it introduces an unnecessarily complicated formula that only serves to lock the level of the cohort in play (assuming the PC with the leadership feat does not die).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: Re: Re: re

What is the difference between a party of three 7th level characters who gain a 5th level cohort and another party of three 7th level character who gain a new player with a 5th level character. Why should the first group still get 1/3 shares while the second gets 1/4 shares?

By default, "significant" NPCs, like cohorts, are created with 25 point buy for stats (and NPC wealth, which will not matter in the long run). That means the cohort is a small notch or two less powerful than a similar level PC is likely to be.

 

[Pax]

Re: Re: Re: re

What is the difference between a party of three 7th level characters who gain a 5th level cohort and another party of three 7th level character who gain a new player with a 5th level character. Why should the first group still get 1/3 shares while the second gets 1/4 shares?

Simply put: the number of people actually sitting at the table.

Three players, one-third share of XP apiece. Anything else is unfair, IMO.

Ideally, a cohort should allow the party to earn more XP in direct proportion to the 1/2 share that they take. Under the new rules, that is impossible. The cohort only results in an easier time for the PCs. With no downside.

Aaron

Generally, a cohort 2-4 levels lower than their leading PC isn't IMO going to contribute significantly to the party's ability to meet challenges.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: re

Generally, a cohort 2-4 levels lower than their leading PC isn't IMO going to contribute significantly to the party's ability to meet challenges.

Once again, in my experience cohorts tend to be one level behind, at least when the feat is taken. Over time they may start to lag as the half-XP holds them back. But if someone takes Leadership as their 18th level feat, they're adding a 17th level character to the party (since it's the Cha-monkeys, in my experience, who take Leadership and can easily pull the Leadership score of 25).

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

The point is that, for X risk, I should get X reward -- and what OTHER PC's select for feats should not reduce OR increase that reward.

You are in fact not looking at the reward. You have an extra character in the party, which lowers the risks and the costs for everyone in an encounter, or equivalently let the whole party afford slightly more encounters with the same resources and risks.

If you want the same aid from an NPC, you have to "give him" full XP as a normal PC. A cohort gets only half XP, therefore you are acually gaining (or saving) XP because your friend took Leadership, and now the party can afford more or harder or easier encounters.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Except for the fact that, like it or not, a leadership-gained cohort is, basically, the property of the character who took the feat. He might wrangle. He might not do certain things, but basically he's an extension of someone's character, not a character in his own right.

If he was anything else, he'd be a GM run NPC, and no feat would be necessary.