Cohorts, Familiars, Mounts, Animal Companions... and CR??

[Thesolinicus]

I am currently in a group that is running two campaigns. We generally get together every 3 or 4 weeks and play for most of a day and into the night. One GM starts the day and then we switch to the other campaign after dinner. It gives everyone a chance to play and makes it a little easier on each GM because they only have to prepare for half of the day. We also keep the stories fresh by using a message board for each. I am a GM in one of the games and have a sort of debate, I guess you would say, with the other GM about Cohorts and xp. He has allowed one of the players to take the leadership feat and therefore have a Cohort. I find them confusing and, to be honest, a pain in the butt. I am sure that the same player will wish to do something similar in my campaign when he gets around to attracting Cohorts. I am really on the fence about allowing Cohorts.

Can anyone help to clarify some rules concerning cohorts (and the like) and their relationship to Party Level and CR? I know that the Cohort (etc…) don’t take any of the parties XP, but do they influence the amount they get to divide out? So, I guess my questions are these:

1. Some classes allow for characters to have ‘helpers’ (i.e. familiars, animal companions, mounts). How do these differ from Cohorts? What about Improved Familiars or Mounts as Cohorts… or dire animal companions?

2. Are Cohorts, Animal Companions, Mounts, Familiars, Improved Familiars, Followers, etc. used to calculate average party level in regard to calculating an encounter’s CR and therefore total XP awarded?

3. If they are included in the calculations, how are they computed? Are they another character or a percentage of a character (so a party of four with one cohort is 5 or 4+X)?

4. Can you give me some arguments for and against Cohorts (etc)? At this point I am personally leaning towards against them.

If anyone can make some suggestions or weigh in with options I would greatly appreciate it… if you have the time to come up with some examples or scenarios that help to illustrate these rules it would also be a big help.

Thanks.

 

[Folly]

Anything that is built into a class (familars, animal campanions, etc) are a factor of the characters EL and are not included in calculations.

I don't remember off the top of my head how cohorts are factored in, but I think they are factored in as per their level (remember that is at least 2 less than the main character).

The biggest issue I have with cohorts is doing the treasure. Since the DMG only gives guidelines on it, everyone has their own opinion on how it should be done, and this can lead to some major headaches. The only time I would give out a cohort is if it fixed a problem with the party make up. Since the simplification this would bring would offset the headache of having them.

If I were to run them in a campaign, I would be tempted to treat them as a full character for both the purpose of party level and gold per encounter. Then provide the cohort with full gold. I say this, but I would also expect the player to play the cohort as a character and not as a henchman.

 

[evilbob]

1. They are actually pretty similar except that "helpers" tend to level and have abilities based on their owner's class levels, while cohorts basically level on their own. I am pretty sure the DMG has some details about how to handle this (look up the leadership feat).

2. No.

3. N/A

4. I think your post and the above post have some good thoughts on why not to include them. As Folly said, the downside of a cohort is that the PC should be paying for the cohort's gear from their own share of the treasure. This is only fair; having a helper in this way can be offset somewhat by making sure that the PC's loot is distributed thusly. However, this is problematic and can lead to that player (or others) getting annoyed. Between this problem and the extra bookkeeping (and the fact that one player tends to hog more of the spotlight since they can act more often), I think most DMs would discourage this feat.

 

[Folly]

4. I think your post and the above post have some good thoughts on why not to include them. As Folly said, the downside of a cohort is that the PC should be paying for the cohort's gear from their own share of the treasure. This is only fair; having a helper in this way can be offset somewhat by making sure that the PC's loot is distributed thusly. However, this is problematic and can lead to that player (or others) getting annoyed. Between this problem and the extra bookkeeping (and the fact that one player tends to hog more of the spotlight since they can act more often), I think most DMs would discourage this feat.

For me it really comes down to this. For most people roleplaying one character is hard enough, doing two is unthinkable. So if the player does not roleplay the cohort effective, it does feel like the spotlight is being hogged. I have had players that did a good job giving their cohorts personalities, and found that when this is done I as a player view the cohort as a separate entity.

I guess in the end for me, it comes down to the player pulling it off.

 

[Thesolinicus]

Thanks for the input Folly...

I can't find a clear explination in any of my books, though perhaps I am just missing it, about how/whether to factor in Cohorts in encounter CR.

On the loot issue we have already had a few 'converstaions' about exactly how much to give them... 1/2 of a share has been the general idea.

I guess my biggest concern with or maybe more accurately dislike of Cohorts is that one character spends a single feat and basically gets an extra character (or more at higher levels). If you factor in the Cohort on CR for encounters then one character takes a feat and basically steels XP from the other players... not to mention loot and, IMHO most importantly, game time (2 character sheets to search through for BAB or in this case speciffically... 2 clerical spell lists). I understand that with a cohort it might be possible to take on bigger challenges but does there 'help' equal out the reduced CR and therefore reduced XP Pool? It also always seems, because they are at least 2 levels lower, that the party always ends up protecting them, sometimes more than another party memeber.

Again thanks for the input Folly... I think I will put your thoughts down in the... don't really recomend Cohorts section.

 

[Thesolinicus]

I really don't think that I am going to use the leadership feat in my campaign.

 

[Thesolinicus]

Thank you as well, evilbob.

Do you know of any documentation that says that they are not consider when calculating encounter CR?

 

[Folly]

To sum up my feelings on the issue:

- The player has be skilled at both fluff and crunch. For example, I could easily run 4 or 5 characters without much trouble (provided I am familiar with them) but would have some trouble with 2 or more characters (one of my down falls as a DM).

- Provided the first caveat, I would factor the cohort in as a full character when building encounters, and provide the cohort with full gold/xp (though I wouldn't let the cohort craft) This prevents the XP/Gold dilution factor that the OP mention, but has the cost of providing 1 player 2 characters (even though 1 of those is 2 levels lower). This is why the first caveat is so important.

 

[irdeggman]

For cohorts (as opposed to followers) - the DMG says they get "paid" - usually a 1/2 share of party treasure (not from the "leader's pot).

It doesn't really address whether or not the add to the EL of the party (which really shouldn't be that much of a factor since they have to be at least 2 levels lower than their "leader").


Now there are rules (and FAQ entries) on not counting familiars and animal companions in the CR of an encounter (as well as summoned creatures) - since they are built into the character's EL (or base CR) already - due to the fact that it is usually from a class feature that they come.

Now the leader had to spend a feat to get leadership - and hence has already padi the prices in regards to adjusting his CR since he can't get any other benefit from that spent feat.

Pay particular attention to all of the warnings and cautions in the DMG about the leadership feat. It requires a lot of attention by the DM and may cause "issues" with the other players due to role-playing and usefulness.

 

[Jhulae]

On the other hand, in a smaller group, the Leadership feat is a way of getting the party some extra help.

In a big group, though, I could definitely see limiting or eliminating it.