[3.5] Cohorts no longer gobble up party XP

[Li Shenron]

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.

Still I am not sure if I understand why you want the kill the cohort. Is it because your PC is Evil and bloodthirsty? That's fine, but why then does he want to kill the cohort only and not just any PC? Is he perhaps cowardly aiming at the weakest party member? Note that I am talking about the PC, not the player: it is perfectly fine, although more challenging than supposed, to roleplay such a character.

What I don't understand is why do you insist so much on this example. It is a little articifial to play a PC who kills cohorts but not e.g. hirelings or simply the lowest level PC. Someone else could come up with a PC who has a phobia for arrows and breaks every bow he sees, spoiling everyone's ranged feats... that wouldn't mean those feats are bad because if a PC spoils them then the owner of the feat gets angry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anybody know what will happen in 3.5 if the Leadership character gets level drained? I suppose the cohort doesn't lose levels, but just stops advancing until the Leader becomes 2 levels higher again.

 

[ergeheilalt]

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.

This is my experience as well. In a game I played a while ago, we took over the leadership of a small town (1900 some people). Myself and my right hand man (another PC), both took Leadership to gain a cohort that would help us run the town while we were out saving it from undead hoards and orcish invasions.

I have yet to see any of my players in my games take leadership, normally it is due to the fact that it is not needed. Running a game with only 2-3 people is probably going to require at least one or two cohorts to fill in, as HeavyG said, the gaps that come with having only a couple players.

Ultimately it comes down to Rule Zero; if you are DMing and dont like leadership dont allow it in the game. Simple as that.

Erge

 

[Madfox]

If there is one thing clear to me from this discussion then it is that cohorts should not fall under the leadership feat. Cohorts are mostly treated as full fledged party members with their own goals and personalities that just happen to have a close bond with one of the PCs. From an IC perspective the only thing difference between a cohort and a regular NPC joining the group is that their loyalties are clearer, but that again is based on meta-game reasoning. It is not as if the PCs themselves are aware that they gained the cohort through taking a feat. Why would a cohort, who gives just as much as a regular PC/NPC gain less xp?

The only thing that I like about the feat is the followers you gain through it and even that is a role-playing benefit, since you would only rarely take them along on an adventure.

 

[Fenes 2]

This whole thread makes me glad I don't use xp or the leadership feat in my games. All that worrying whether or not you get your "fair share" of "the rewards" for the risk... ugh.

IMC, there are PCs, and there are NCPs. Players play their PC, everything else - NPC, monster, familiar, bonded mount - is ultimately controlled by the DM and considered a NPC. Depending on the relationship between PC and NPC the PC may have more or less or no control over the behaviour of any NPC. Some NPCs a PC can order to "walk through that door and back until the magical ward is triggered again", other NPCs are the equal of a PC, or even the superiour. All those relationships depend on the roleplaying - your PC has to "earn" the loyality of a NPC.

Some NPCs are considered party members, others are servants, and even a PC may only be considered a hired help of another PC or NPC and not a "full party member".

In short, I try to have both PCs and NPCs be characters first, without the "PC special status" visible in-game. (OOC though PCs are "special", and I take care to cater to the wishes of a player for a PC.)

 

[drnuncheon]

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.

<snip>

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

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".

Wow. What an incredibly inaccurate analogy.

First of all, cohorts get a half share of XP. I don't know where the 2000 XP figure came from, unless the guy took Leadership twice.

Second, you're implying that the other PC gets full use out of the "extra XP' that he gets for having a cohort - which is of course not true. Nice try at a scare tactic though - your numbers above do make it look like 'oh my god the guy with leadership is getting so much more than me!'

Third, try this on for size:

Your party of four 6th-level adventurers needs a cleric, so they go out and hire an NPC (a 5th level cleric). They come across 5000 xp, and each one gets 1000 xp.

My party of four 6th-level adventurers needs a cleric, so I take leadership and get a cleric cohort (5th level). We come across 5000 xp. Everyone gets 1111 xp, except for the cohort, who gets 555.

Hold on a second...everyone gets more XP, and the rest of these jokers didn't even pay a feat? How fair is that?

J

 

[Li Shenron]

As a side note: I think the best is if the DM runs the cohort exactly as he would run any other normal NPC, and not let the player control the cohort as his own PC (this is left totally open by the DMG AFAIR).

A player who plays 2 PCs or 1 PC and a cohort is always under the risk of metagaming between the two, it's very very difficult to be able to play them as two really independent characters.

On the other hand, the DM should play a cohort as someone very loyal to his PC. Remember Sancho Panza, who followed Don Quixote in his madness The player has spent a feat on Leadership exactly to be able to keep the cohort by his side: he still should not play abuse over him, but at least he should expect the cohort not to easily abandon or betray him as a hireling or "normal" NPC might.
From the point of view of the character: a feat represents a talent (whether innate or developed in time), and just as Toughness is the talent to resist physical damage a little longer, or Rapid Shot the talent of loading/shooting more quickly than normal, Leadership represents the talent of influencing another character to be loyal and follow you with esteem.

Rules-wise Leadership has its own mechanic, which may change as the designers feel appropriate, without changing what it represents. Eventually the chosen mechanics in 3.0 decided that the extra benefit of 50% discount over XP gone to the cohort was a balanced choice. I think it was: a cohort played by the DM could be either better or worse compared to one played by the player; as any other NPC added to the group makes an encounter easier, I think it was fair he got an XP share; as it costs a feat, requires good Charisma to be worth, and has additional "running costs", I think it was fair he didn't got the full XP share.

But really, if you let the DM run the cohorts instead of the players, you avoid a lot of trivial complications. Of course, you need a very smart and prepared DM for that, that's why the feat is in the DMG and every DM who doesn't feel prepared should not allow the feat by default.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I've played both ways. When I DM'd I took the cohort share out of the party. The cohort was a cleric that was expected to heal the entire party.

The time I played and took leadership, I had a character that was already a level behind as a monk and took my cohort to be a wizard. I was expected to take my experience and split it between myself and my cohort. My cohort was expected to help the rest of the party live. I fell further behind, until I was little more than a cohort to the rest of the party. Sucketh much.

So as a player I used a valuable feat that could have gone toward spring attack and helped shore up a weakness in the party and then got further screwed by it. Blech.

 

[RigaMortus]

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.

Actually, the first time Frodo met Legolas and Gimli was at the Council of Elrond. It was at this point they first joined Frodo, not because they saw him as a Leader type, but because the quest he was on was a noble and important one. They wanted to make sure he succeeded. The same could be said for Aragorn. Gandalf sent Aragorn to find Frodo. Aragorn didn't say to himself, "This little Hobbit would make a good leader, I think I will follow him." Grant it, neither did Pip and Merry, but their motivations for following Frodo were MUCH different than Aragorn, Gimili and Legolas. I would say Sam would also be a follower as well. Also keep in mind, in DnD terms, a cohort is LOWER level than their leader. I would argue that Aragorn, Gimili and Legolas were all higher level than Frodo.

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.

Says me and anyone else who values the STORY over other arbitrary gaming devices (such as exp and loot). I am pretty sure that the Leadership feat is described in the DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE, right? So it is obviously up to the DM to say, "Yes it is acceptable to take this feat and have a follower" or "No, it is not acceptable to take this feat and have a follower". Really, what is the difference between a cohort the character picks up and one the DM has join the party? The DM gets the final say in the matter no matter what. The only difference is, does the DM control the cohort or does the player? Oh, and exp distribution would be another difference. I'm sure you'd rather have a cohort
taking up half the share of exp a player would get than a DM run NPC taking up the full share, right? Me, I could care less either way, as long as the STORY is good, I'm having fun. I guess those whose games are centered on loot/exp/leveling wouldn't understand this though.

FWIW, we don't use the Leadership feat. Leadership is built into the story. If you start out as playing a noble, or somehow acquire a leadership position where people start to look up to you, you work it out with the DM if you want to take a cohort or not. No feat required. More often than not though, it tends to slow down the game (depending on who is running the cohort). Heck, even familiars and animal friends that get into combat slow us down a lot. But, as I said, if it makes sense for someone to pick up a cohort, we don't b***h about getting less exp. That's reserved for immature gamers, which we don't game with.

 

[Pax]

Says me and anyone else who values the STORY over other arbitrary gaming devices (such as exp and loot).

*Oni No Snippage has a big meal of "empty calories" ...*

Typical response. "Anyone who keeps an eye on the mechanics, must not value the story at all" ... tantamount to calling someone dirty names like "munchkin", all because they are more aware of rules issues than you.

Me, I'm a stickler for fairness, balance, and consistency. Good story, IMO, flows FROM these things.

You can have an otherwise great story, which has no fairness (and is not fun to those on the s*** end of the exchange), has no balance (the underpowered are as likely to feel their time is wasted, as to enjoy watching the ubercharacters have fun), and lacks all consistency, internal or otherwise (which to me at least torpedoes ANY story, no matter how good it is otherwise).

 

[RigaMortus]

Me, I'm a stickler for fairness, balance, and consistency. Good story, IMO, flows FROM these things.

I don't think D&D is your game then. D&D throws all these things out of the window, and it's not just because of the Leadership feat either. And ya know what? It's actually a GOOD thing...

Fairness? A low level Wizard (like level 5) can take out oodells of baddies with one spell, where as it would take a Fighter several rounds to do the same. Is that fair? I think not. That's just one simple example. I could get more elaborate, but I'm hoping you see the point.

Balance? Same example as I gave for Fairness would apply here as well. It is not balanced that one character can take out a s**t load of baddies with one "Standard Action" and another character has to take several rounds to get the same result.

Consistency? D&D rules have been very inconsistant (hence an attempt to correct this in 3.5).

The only system that would encompass all these three things you are looking for is one where nothing was random or left up to chance. Where there is only one character class or race, and everyone is the same.

But back on topic (sorta)...

I am curious how you handle PCs with a magical item, far above their Character Wealth. Let's say you have a party that is in possession of an uber artifact, worth millions of GP (obvious example would be Frodo going to destroy the One Ring, to back to some previous analogies). Is the possessor of that item suddenly "screwed" out of getting Magic Items for the rest of their career, or until they decide to "ditch" this uber artifact?

If so, that is really harsh. The STORY is more important here. "Sorry Bob, you are carrying the Uber Artifact, and even though you are the only one in the party that can use the Vorpal Halbard +5, we can't let you have it."

It's the same thing with cohorts. If a player takes a cohort expressly to screw over the other players with regards to exp, well that is a different problem all together. I can't really see this happening. But if the story makes sense for them to have it, then sure, why not? If the others start to complain that they are getting less exp, well maybe you should find more mature gamers (or maybe your DM should).

I'm not trying to invalidate any type of playstyle, one that values loot/exp over story, but lets be realistic here. If you want to center a campaign on who can level the quickest, kill the most monsters, do the most damage or acquire the most loot, why are you playing a Pen and Paper ROLEPLAYING game? Roleplaying is ALL about the story, isn't it?