[3.5] Cohorts no longer gobble up party XP

[Pax]

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.

And if I want to (if alignment permits) kill the poor sot for his stuff, a regular NPC is just that -- yet anotehr regular NPC.

However, I'd tick off a fellow player if I went around doing the slice-anddie to his cohort.

...

There's also the fact that I would have LESS say in wether or not the cohort can tag along, than I would about a generic NPC.

And again: an NPC 2-4 levels below the average party level is not making a significant contribution to encounters. If anything, he's a greater drain on extant resources.

Woe unto the party when their cleric gets a "meatshield" fighter-type cohort; you know where most of THAT cleric's healing is going ...

... straight into their own (lower AC, lower HP) cohort.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

I prefer rules that are consistent. It is inconsistent to incorporate additional xp shares from the pool of xp earned for a cohort that has contributed to the success of the party.

I feel that giving the cohort xp both ensures that game balance and story are forwarded equally. It is good for the story because experience is representative of group contribution. It is representative of game balance because such a powerful and benefical feat should have negative repercussions for gaining the use of an additional party member.

Then again, that is why we have the option of using those rules which best suit our own view of how the game should run. Obviously the decision has been made. I consider it a bad decision, but I can see that quite a few players prefer it this way either for ease of bookkeeping or pure selfishness.

 

[Aaron2]

And again: an NPC 2-4 levels below the average party level is not making a significant contribution to encounters. If anything, he's a greater drain on extant resources.

I find that players are smart enough to pick a cohort to best fill any holes in the party. For example, in the party I DM, the player picked a rogue cohort because the party up until that time didn't have one. This rogue had the best seach and, thus, found more hidden treasure than the rest of the party combined. Even two levels behind. Plus her tumbling into flanking positions gave the raging barbarian plenty of +2s. All this for the measly cost of 10% XP.


If a cohort lets the party take on one encounter at CR+1 for every four normal encounters. It pays for itself.

For example, a sixth level party takes on four CR 6 encounters.

Total XP=7200/4 = 1800 a piece.

Same party with a cohort takes on 3 CR6 and one CR7 encounters

Total XP=8100/4.5 = 1800 a piece.


If a character with a low charisma picks a cohort that doesn't add much to the party structure then, yeah, it won't work out all that well. However, I don't see a difference between that and a player with a character that isn't very effective (such as a multi-class bard/wizard). I guess what I'm trying to say is that its just as easy to create an ineffective PC as an ineffective cohort. At least the cohorts have a 1/2 effectiveness factor build in.


Aaron

 

[Storm Raven]

So, Players 2, 3, and 4 LOSE XP, because Player #1 took Leadership. They amortise his special ability.

On the other hand, the party is now able to tackle more difficult challenges than they otherwise would be able to because of the addition of the firepower the cohort provides. Consequently, the party will likely get more xp than they otherwise would have if the cohort had not been present.

 

[Storm Raven]

And again: an NPC 2-4 levels below the average party level is not making a significant contribution to encounters. If anything, he's a greater drain on extant resources.

Then you are a moron when it comes to running cohorts. A cohort 2-4 levels below the average party level can (and in my experience usually does) add significantly to the party's effectiveness. I've seen groups of PCs with more elvel disparity than that in which the lowest level party member was more valuable than the highest level member. It depends on the situation and the skill of the player.

 

[Li Shenron]

And if I want to (if alignment permits) kill the poor sot for his stuff, a regular NPC is just that -- yet anotehr regular NPC.

However, I'd tick off a fellow player if I went around doing the slice-anddie to his cohort.

...

There's also the fact that I would have LESS say in wether or not the cohort can tag along, than I would about a generic NPC.

You are free to treat another PC's cohort, and possibly even your own one, just like any other NPC, and take the consequences. If you play an evil PC who mistreats and kills his cohort, it's perfectly fine, it's even an interesting RP possibility. I suppose the same character would behave just the same with the other PCs and try to kill one or two every now and then.

And again: an NPC 2-4 levels below the average party level is not making a significant contribution to encounters. If anything, he's a greater drain on extant resources.

As any other Feat, Leadership is not worth the same for every PC. Some have good reasons to take it, some should never or they'll waste a feat.

Woe unto the party when their cleric gets a "meatshield" fighter-type cohort; you know where most of THAT cleric's healing is going ...

... straight into their own (lower AC, lower HP) cohort.

This is a matter of playing well. No doubt that there should be a good RP policy between a PC and his cohort, which may mean that the PC is compelled to be "more generous" to the cohort than the rest of the party, while the cohort also prefers his master.
If you don't want your Cleric to play badly, ask him not to or not to take the feat at all. But it's a problem of the player, not the feat.

 

[Tzarevitch]

Item Making cohorts are awesome now! After all, once the're within one level of their master they don't gain any XP. So instead of leveling up just spend most of their XP on making items... since once they reach your level they don't get any anyway... if you run the math right it would be like having a big pool of free XP!

How do you figure that? Unless I misunderstood, they don't gain any xp. I don't see where this "big pool of free xp", you mention is coming from.

Tzarevitch

 

[Pax]

Then you are a moron when it comes to running cohorts.

I will thank you, sir, to either keep a civil tongue in yoru head or to refrain from speaking at all. In either event, please keep your more vitriolic comments to yourself.

You are free to treat another PC's cohort, and possibly even your own one, just like any other NPC, and take the consequences. If you play an evil PC who mistreats and kills his cohort, it's perfectly fine, it's even an interesting RP possibility. I suppose the same character would behave just the same with the other PCs and try to kill one or two every now and then.

Ah, but if I kill the cohort of the friend sitting next to me, twice, thrice, or more often ... eventually he will become understandably upset that I'm denying him the benefit of HIS feat.

OTOH, the GM isn't likely to become unhappy because his NPC-in-the-party doesn't live long; GMs are likely fairly ACCUSTOMED to having PCs kill their NPCs (even if said NPC is merely "Orc #85" or whatever).

 

[RigaMortus]

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.

Correct me if I am wrong, but when Frodo left the Shire, Pip and Merry followed Frodo. He never asked them to come along, they volunteered.

That aside, the point remains the same... Complaning about losing exp because of an NPC follower ruins the roleplay and story aspect of the campaign.

 

[Storm Raven]

I will thank you, sir, to either keep a civil tongue in yoru head or to refrain from speaking at all. In either event, please keep your more vitriolic comments to yourself.

If you don't want people to point out that you are incompetent, then don't say things that make people think you are incompetnent. Asserting that you are unable to make an asset as valuable as a cohort useful is you basically saying "I don't know what I am doing, I am too incompetent for words".

Cohorts are quite possibly the most valuable asset a party has, more so than magic items, the benfits of most feats or anything else. A cohort is so valuable in terms of the benefit it provides to an adventuring party that the Leadership feat is probably unbalanced with respect to other available feats.

Teh fact that you apparently cannot make this asset useful simply indicates that you shouldn't be offering advice on any aspect of the game to anyone.

Ah, but if I kill the cohort of the friend sitting next to me, twice, thrice, or more often ... eventually he will become understandably upset that I'm denying him the benefit of HIS feat.

He would also be justified in being upset that you are wasting an asset to the party that is more valuable than any item, feat, or skill that you bring to the table.