[3.5] Cohorts no longer gobble up party XP

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Which is entirely an individual case. Suppose we're talking about an evil campaign, or indeed any campaign other than the "Hey guy I've never met before, lets go camp out and risk our lives!"

Simply put, the party is paying XP in order to recieve a benefit which they may never benefit from. And they have absolutely no choice about whether they contribute.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Re: re

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.

Oh, you mean in exactly the same way as a hired NPC would? So what precisely did I spend a feat on again? Since I don't have my DMG with me, I'm relying on the SRD text, but it refers to "devoted companions", and gives modifiers to the leadership score for being abusive. It certainly doesn't suggest that fair and equitable treatment is necessary to retain a cohort.

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.

But primarily he's focussed on serving the bard. It would be entirely possible for someone to specify that their cohort is fanatically loyal and won't move without a direct order from their character. I can certainly think of a number of role-played situations where that would indeed be the case. None of this changes the fact that the character spent the feat, and if his cohort is always running off and doing things he shouldn't, it's not difficult to merely dismiss him and get another one which is more amenable, per the feat.

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.

Of course the alignment and personality of the cohort are primarily the choice of the character with the feat, for the reasons I gave above.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Which is entirely an individual case. Suppose we're talking about an evil campaign, or indeed any campaign other than the "Hey guy I've never met before, lets go camp out and risk our lives!"

Simply put, the party is paying XP in order to recieve a benefit which they may never benefit from. And they have absolutely no choice about whether they contribute.

I do not see the difference. The exact same issue applies to PCs.

D&D assumes a modicum of teamwork or xp and treasure distribution systems break down. If you lack teamwork, you already have grave problems regardless of whether there is a cohort in the picture.

A cohort is just another PC resource. In principle, being selfish with the cohort is no different than being greedy with your HPs when a comrade is in danger.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: re

Oh, you mean in exactly the same way as a hired NPC would? So what precisely did I spend a feat on again? Since I don't have my DMG with me, I'm relying on the SRD text, but it refers to "devoted companions", and gives modifiers to the leadership score for being abusive. It certainly doesn't suggest that fair and equitable treatment is necessary to retain a cohort.

I'm going to ask this only once. Do you play a roleplaying game? Are you aware that game designers cannot spell everything out for you? It does say that the cohort has its own individual personality and is a character there for a reason. Not there just because you pay them, but for whatever reason you and the DM design.

That is why it is the DMG. Because you and the DM have to work out the specifics of how the cohort will work.

But primarily he's focussed on serving the bard. It would be entirely possible for someone to specify that their cohort is fanatically loyal and won't move without a direct order from their character. I can certainly think of a number of role-played situations where that would indeed be the case. None of this changes the fact that the character spent the feat, and if his cohort is always running off and doing things he shouldn't, it's not difficult to merely dismiss him and get another one which is more amenable, per the feat.

That would be bad roleplaying for this particular bard. Get it, bad roleplaying.

Of course the alignment and personality of the cohort are primarily the choice of the character with the feat, for the reasons I gave above.

Within limits. I'll tell you, if I was the DM and the player treated the cohort like a mindless slave, they would lose their cohort eventually, feat or no. I play this game to roleplay, not to have some person who uses this as nothing more than an exercise in ego viewing it as some substitution for real world accomplishment. I don't like those kinds of players, and I will run them off from games in a heartbeat.

 

[Fenes 2]

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.

I guess you would be astonished by our campaign, where one PC is the hired guard of another PC and "serves" the PC, and another PC is effectively "owned" by the same PC.

 

[Aaron2]

Simply put, the party is paying XP in order to recieve a benefit which they may never benefit from. And they have absolutely no choice about whether they contribute.

Where does this "absolutely no choice" thing come from? If a cleric (PC, NPC or cohort alike) refuses to heal anyone but himself, he'll be kicked out of the party pretty fast. Likewise with a fighter who constantly stands on the sidelines.

If a party doesn't think a cohort is earning his 1/2 share then they just make the cohort stay at home while they go out adventuring.

One thing to keep in mind is that a cohort doesn't cost the rest of the party anything. If anything, the cohort will earn the rest of the party more XP, just like if a player had made a more efficient PC.

Aaron

 

[drnuncheon]

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

And party B still gets more XP than party A (the 4 PCs plus a full-fledged NPC) - a fact which which you conveniently and continually ignore.

J

 

[Storm Raven]

And party B still gets more XP than party A (the 4 PCs plus a full-fledged NPC) - a fact which which you conveniently and continually ignore.

No they don't. They just divide it up differently.

 

[drnuncheon]

No they don't. They just divide it up differently.

Fine. The PCs get more, which was what the complaint was about, was it not?

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.

I finally figured out what was bugging me about this argument.

Yeah, I do reduce the XP award to individual party members when they do not use their abilities in a beneficial way. It's called "the PCs don't overcome the challenge and therefore don't get XP".

J

 

[Storm Raven]

Fine. The PCs get more, which was what the complaint was about, was it not?

Actually, it wasn't. Because it is an irrelevancy. The original complaint is that a cohort "suck up" xp that should go to the PCs, costing them. Of course, since PCs get more that complaint is rendered beside the point.