[3.5] Cohorts no longer gobble up party XP

[Lord Pendragon]

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".

This is simply uncalled for. If you've been around here long enough to post 700-odd times, you should know that we don't behave like this around here.

To respond to the topic: I have a 7th-level paladin (Cha 20) who's just taken the Leadership feat to gain a 6th-level wizard cohort. I think the feat is quite strong, and should benefit not only myself, but the party as a whole.

What I gain:

* The fun of playing with spells as well as a big sword in combat.
* A wizard who can cast Eagle's Splendor on my paladin.
* An intriguing role-playing opportunity, developing the relationship between my paladin and his cohort.

What the party gains:

* A wizard who can cast utility spells, such as Bull's Strength.
* A ranged combatant (my cohort's 25hp means staying AWAY from the front lines. )
* The occasional Fireball.

In all honesty, I don't think my cohort will be taking away from the rest of the party in any way. If anything, our overall effectiveness has become greater than before.

But I agree with those who mentioned the cohort's loyalty. The cohort should put his master first. That's what makes him a cohort and not a full member of the party.

 

[Storm Raven]

This is simply uncalled for. If you've been around here long enough to post 700-odd times, you should know that we don't behave like this around here.

He said he couldn't make a cohort valuable. His assertion was that a cohort would necessarily be a drain on the party; a detriment rather than an asset. Given that this is completely ludicrous, pointing out that he has to have no clue about what he is doing in order to be unable to make a cohort valuable is perfectly justified.

 

[Pax]

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.

Nor did Gimli, Legolas, Gandalf, Aragorn, nor Boromir. Are THEY, also, cohorts of Frodo? Or perhaps they are equal-weight PCs?

If anyone was a cohort, it was Samwise.

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.

Says you. I, on the other hand, prefer to see everyone at the table be treated fairly ... when the gamemaster brings an NPC in that cuts the XP down, that's one thing -- the GM sets the rate of XP gain, NPC or not.

When a player brings in an NPC that does that, it's a different matter, and IMO, it's not "fine" anymore.

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".[/b]

Quote me ONE TIME as sayng a cohort could not be valuable. My assertations are that the cohort is not USUALLY a valuable asset to the whole PARTY.

If you get out fo that my saying I am incompetent because I cannot make effective use of a cohort, then perhaps you need some remedial lessons in basic reading comprehension!

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.

Says you. I don't tend to play with people who twink their characters for UberPower efficiency, squeezing every last drop of ability-to-beat-the-odds out of each possible source on the characters' sheets.

Sometimes a cohort is taken just because the concept fits the character (the knight with a loyal, and even somewhat competent, squire; a Wizard and his younger, less capable, but eagerly loyal apprentice; etc).

The 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.

The fact that you read me as saying I am unable to make a cohort useful is completely mystifying to me -- as nothing I've said would lead a REASONABLE person to conclude any such thing.

Most cohorts are less likely to make an equal and significant contribution to the party, as most Player Characters can and will make, under most circumstances.

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.

Says you; that would depend entirely on my character, and on the cohort in question, now, wouldn't it ... ?

He said he couldn't make a cohort valuable. His assertion was that a cohort would necessarily be a drain on the party; a detriment rather than an asset. Given that this is completely ludicrous, pointing out that he has to have no clue about what he is doing in order to be unable to make a cohort valuable is perfectly justified.

Quote.

Me.

Saying.

That.

Even.

ONCE.

One time, ****-for-brains. Just one time saying I could not make a cohort valuable.

And ... just to get a jump on things: when you prove utterly unable to do so, APOLOGISE like never before.

 

[drnuncheon]

Quote me ONE TIME as sayng a cohort could not be valuable. My assertations are that the cohort is not USUALLY a valuable asset to the whole PARTY.

100% of my experience with cohorts has been the opposite. They have filled in missing pieces in the party's lineup, enabling them to take on (and survive) significantly more difficult challenges. That may be because I've got an unusually small party, but the Leadership feat has saved my players more than any other feat they've taken.

But it's not just good in small campaigns. Check out Piratecat's Story Hour for other excellent examples - several of the PCs in there started out as cohorts, IIRC (Malachite and Agar, at least), and they certainly were valuable assets to the party as a whole. I'll bet that SHARK could come up with a few threads worth of similar stories as well.

Most cohorts are less likely to make an equal and significant contribution to the party, as most Player Characters can and will make, under most circumstances.

And all cohorts earn less XP than any PC or same-level NPC, under all curcumstances. Neat how that works, isn't it?

If the DM is doing his job, then you're not going to get fewer XP, because you're going to be able to handle tougher opponents, and tougher opponents means more XP.

J

 

[Darkness]

Guys, no name-calling or heated arguing, please. Just take it easy, ok?

- Darkness

 

[Saeviomagy]

Bear in mind people, we're not talking about a full fledged NPC here.

We are talking about a feat belonging to one of the characters.

Situation:

My party of 4 characters finds 5000 gold. Since I want the campaign to roll along with minimal bookeeping, I as GM divide the gold between them.

Which is more fair:

a) I give each character 1250 gold (1/4 of the gold)

b) I give each character 1000 gold, except for the character with "cleave", who gets 2000 gold, because his feat was more useful than those of the other characters.

Now. Change that situation so we're talking about XP.


My party of 4 characters finds 5000 XP. Since I want the campaign to roll along with minimal bookeeping, I as GM divide the XP between them.

Which is more fair:

a) I give each character 1250 XP (1/4 of the gold)

b) I give each character 1000 XP, except for the character with "cleave", who gets 2000 XP, because his feat was more useful than those of the other characters.

Finally, replace the "cleave" feat in the last answer with "leadership".

Still fair to give the cohort a share of XP deducted from the party total?

A cohort BELONGS to a character. Whether he benefits any other party member is almost entirely up to the character who owns him, in exactly the same way as any other feat, class ability, stat or item. Characters don't get extra XP for those, so why should they get extra for their cohort?

And if you REALLY think that leadership is powerful enough that it needs an experience cost, then that cost should be entirely the burden of the character with the cohort, in the same way that a wizard with the powerful feat to create items has to pay the experience cost out of his own pocket.

 

[HeavyG]

Some of you really seem to think that D&D is competitive.

In our games, when a PC takes leadership, it is always to fill in a hole in the party capabilities. All (or most) of the PCs agree that there is a need for a NPC and the one with the charisma usually agree to pay the feat cost. Thus, they are not mad to have the NPC get some XPs.

What's more, since cohorts are usually chosen to fill out a particular lack in the group, they usually help out much more than a paltry half share, so it's a deal really. I mean, sure, in a party of 4 meleers, a dwarf fighter cohort with lesser stats and less magical items will not do a half share of work. But a wizard or cleric cohort will probably be as useful as any team member.


Is this "I'm gonna take a cohort and y'all are gonna get less XP and there's nothing you suckers can do about it" attitude really that prevalent ? Sheesh.

 

[Aaron2]

Finally, replace the "cleave" feat in the last answer with "leadership".

Still fair to give the cohort a share of XP deducted from the party total?

The only thing not fair is this premise. The PC with Leadership is *not* getting more XP. He's getting what everyone else is getting.

A cohort will pay for itself in XP based on increased party power. Its just like any other feat. If used properly (character has high charisma, cohort fills vacant party role), then the feat will more than pay for itself. If used poorly it won't.

If a party feels that the cohort is not pulling his 1/2 share, then they should tell the cohort to stay at home. Just like any other NPC. Heck, they can do the same to other PCs.


Aaron

 

[Archer]

The way I read the new rule is that the cohort will level each time the PC levels unless 1) the cohort dies, 2) the PC dies or 3) Someone makes a magic item.

If a 10th level character gets the 10k needed to level, his cohort will get his level divided by 10 * the 10k (=1k per level) which for any level is enough to level.

 

[Mercule]

Under the new rules, Cohorts no longer dip into the party XP pool. They get their own share, which isn't subtracted from the party's share.

Oh, so it's like Diablo 2 cohorts!

That's a great idea. Let's see if we can make D&D play exactly like a video game.

Don't get me wrong. I love Diablo 2 (just finished playing an hour of it), but that ain't the feel I want to bring to the table.