[3.5] Cohorts no longer gobble up party XP

[kigmatzomat]

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

Quibble here, but good GAMES flow from those things. Story has nothing to do with the game. Ever been rail-roaded? Some of the greatest stories make the suckiest campaigns. By the same token, a good game can be unentertaining because of its dismal lack of story.

Here's the crux of the matter:
if the GM adjusts the ELs to match party + cohort, the XP awards don't change per encounter nor should the overall difficulty.

If the GM does treats the cohort as luggage and does not adjust the EL upwards, the XP awards will drop but the encounters get easier because you've got an extra party member.

 

[Olorin]

Positive change

In my campaign's experience, the one time a character took Leadership and gained a cohort, it did engender some grumbling when everyone realized he would be getting a portion of the group's total xp. Even from the player of the pc with the cohort!

The cohort was helpful, but not terribly so (and he was played effectively). So I see this as a good change, you get the benefit of the feat without the negative side.

 

[Celebrim]

Quibble here, but good GAMES flow from those things. Story has nothing to do with the game. Ever been rail-roaded? Some of the greatest stories make the suckiest campaigns.

Ok, quibble here too then. All the above point proves is not all good stories make good games. Ok, that's to be expected. Not all good stories make good movies either (at least, not easily). The transition from one format to another is always fraught with a certain ammount of difficulty.

And your next point completely undermines your thesis, because it seems you assert (correctly I feel) that a good game depends a great deal on the quality of the underlying story.

By the same token, a good game can be unentertaining because of its dismal lack of story.

No game that isn't entertaining is a 'good' game. The point of a game is to be entertaining. While it may be true that not all good stories make good games, I think that it is certainly true that all good games make good stories. Granted, the transition from game back to story might be fraught with difficulty, but I'd expect at least some decent table stories - "remember when's" - to come from any good gaming session. I'd expect a really good game in the hands of a really good story teller to be a really good story, and I might add that I think that is the characteristic that separates a merely good DM from the great ones.

 

[Breezly]

Re: Positive change

In my campaign's experience, the one time a character took Leadership and gained a cohort, it did engender some grumbling when everyone realized he would be getting a portion of the group's total xp. Even from the player of the pc with the cohort!

I can see this if the DM does not account for the change in party dynamics. But, it is the DM's job to make sure that the challenges (i.e. Encounter Levels) are suitable for the new party.

This point was made back on page 2 (sorry to not quote it here), where the addition of the cohort makes you a stronger party and should therefore be able to go after stronger challenges, or the DM should enhance encounters, to account for this new strength.

If you took a party of 4 and you slew 4 ogres, you each would get x/4 experience. If you added a cohort and you went after those same ogres, you would get x/4.5 and of course there would be a little grumbling in the party. But, I argue that a good DM should take those 4 Ogres and throw in some Orcs or other suitable challenge to make up for the parties new strength.

If this were the case, as has been stated before, your party might actual get MORE experience with a cohort then you would have as a standard party of 4. All of this falls down if the DM does not make any changes to the encounter to account for the challenge.

Now, where this argument completely falls apart is with the new 3.5 rule that states cohorts do not get party Exp. This artifical way of addressing the party grumbling issue actually does more harm then good, IMHO. Because, if as argued above, the DM upgrades the challenges, the group would get more experience then they perhaps should have. If the DM leaves the encounter the same, he may have a party with Cohorts hacking and burning their way through the adventure.

So, therefore, I have argued in circles against the new changes to the Cohort. And, now I am dizzy and must go sit down.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Positive change

I can see this if the DM does not account for the change in party dynamics. But, it is the DM's job to make sure that the challenges (i.e. Encounter Levels) are suitable for the new party.

Keep trying, maybe someday he'll actually answer this.

J
Probably not, though.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Fairly irrelevant. But you're right, I made a mistake.

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!'

OK, so it's clear to me that you treat a cohort gained from the leadership as "just another NPC, but one that gets half XP". The cohort is loyal to the PC who took the feat, regardless of pay or treatment. He's basically a possession of the PC, much like a sword or a familiar. True - he may be run by the GM, but he is supposed to be run for the benefit of the PC with the feat.

Or are you trying to suggest that a cleric should get more XP because he casts beneficial spells on other people?

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

Gee, I don't know, maybe because in the first example they've got a full-fledged NPC with them that none of them spent a feat on? You've got a party of 6 characters for the first example and a party of 5 characters, one of whom has a particular feat, for the second. Why does a different party of 5 characters (one without said feat) get more XP than your example 5 character group?

Leadership is a FEAT. It is not another member of your adventuring party. It's just like the wizard having a familiar, the druid having animal companions, or the cleric using "planar ally" to have a celestial follow the party around. Each has already been paid for in some way, and by the character who gets the primary benefit. Why should leadership require an additional, ongoing cost unless it's too powerful? And if that cost is needed to balance the feat, why does the entire party pay it, without any form of choice in the matter?

 

[drnuncheon]

Gee, I don't know, maybe because in the first example they've got a full-fledged NPC with them that none of them spent a feat on?

Same party makeup. Same characters (except for one feat). The party with a cohort (rather than a full-fledged NPC) gets more XP.

You've got a party of 6 characters for the first example and a party of 5 characters, one of whom has a particular feat, for the second. Why does a different party of 5 characters (one without said feat) get more XP than your example 5 character group?

Nice try, but go back and read again. Both parties are 5 people - four PCs plus an NPC. In Party A, it is just an NPC. In party B, it is a cohort. The PC members of Party B get more XP, because the NPC cohort gets fewer.

J

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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?

If cannot trust your fellow player to play the cohort such that this NPC carries his weight, I do not see why you trust him with his own PC in the first place.

 

[Celtavian]

re

OK, so it's clear to me that you treat a cohort gained from the leadership as "just another NPC, but one that gets half XP". The cohort is loyal to the PC who took the feat, regardless of pay or treatment. He's basically a possession of the PC, much like a sword or a familiar. True - he may be run by the GM, but he is supposed to be run for the benefit of the PC with the feat.

Or are you trying to suggest that a cleric should get more XP because he casts beneficial spells on other people?

This is not true. A cohort must be treated fairly, have a good reason for serving, and be paid accordingly as in equipped with available magic. A cohort is not a slave. It will only act as such in the hands of a poor DM, who should not even allow cohorts if he or she doesn't plan to ensure that they are played properly.

A bard in our group has a fighter cohort who defends him while he is singing. The guy is always asking the bard if he can enter battle because he doesn't feel right standing on the sidelines. Usually the bard lets him run in. On a few occasions, he has run off on his own to help the party because he felt they needed help.

Running a cohort is mostly done by the PC, but the DM needs to step in on occasion if he feels the cohort is acting inapporpriately for this alignment or personality. I view running a cohort as both a PC and DM responsibility requiring the input of both to ensure it is done properly.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Same party makeup. Same characters (except for one feat). The party with a cohort (rather than a full-fledged NPC) gets more XP.

If my character owns a horse, does it get a fair share of XP? Cohorts are not independant characters. They serve one of the PC's. Any contribution they make to the rest of the party's fortunes are as fickle as the cleric using a 'heal' spell on anyone but himself. You don't reduce the XP awarded to individual party members just because the cleric used 'heal', and you shouldn't reduce the XP award to individual party members just because someone else used one of their abilities, like leadership, especially when the use may not have been beneficial in any way shape or form.

Nice try, but go back and read again. Both parties are 5 people - four PCs plus an NPC. In Party A, it is just an NPC. In party B, it is a cohort. The PC members of Party B get more XP, because the NPC cohort gets fewer.

J

Nope. Party B is a 4 person party plus the outcome of a feat.