Cohorts over main PC

[Quasqueton]

One of my Players wanted me to post about this.

The party has been 4 PCs and an NPC for a long while. Recently, one Player brought in a new character to replace his other. The new character is a cleric with the Leadership feat. His cohort is a bard.

In the last game session, the party used diplomacy to get into the adventure site. Specifically, the bard cohort (played by the Player) talked their way in. He diplomacized the guards at the entry, a few other warrior-types, and the "hobgoblin" chieftan. In the end, a couple of the PCs want the bard to be the party leader.

The Player (and I, and the other Players) thought it amusing that he ended up playing his cohort more than his main PC. And that the cohort is becoming the party leader because of his diplomacy skills.

Quasqueton

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I have a player who can't stick with the same character for more than six sessions, guaranteed. I've been lucky that recently he's done what you described. At least that way, there's plenty of continuity.

 

[interwyrm]

Declare that the bard is now the pc's character, and the the cleric character will not advance anymore until the bard is at least two levels above him.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi Quasqueton,

In most of our games, The DM runs all NPCs including any cohorts. As such, we have not come across this "problem" before - if in fact it is a problem; if anything, it seems a good opportunity for some interesting role-playing.

My question would be, why would a character - in this case a bard - want to follow the cleric, and then decide to lead him? I think by doing so, you would most certainly "break" the bonds of leader/cohort.

As such I think you might be inclined to have the Bard as the player's character while the Cleric becomes an NPC. I have to say, a strange situation.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Capellan]

I don't get the impression that Quasqueton or his players have an issue with the way things are, so I don't really see a need for changing anything. As long as everyone had fun with it, I don't think it is a problem. We've had similar situations in our games, where a cohort has been more vocal in a session than his player's PC, but it's not that big a deal.

For what it is worth, though, just having a high Diplomacy doesn't necesarily mean someone should be leader. They could simply be a persuasive mouthpiece for the real people running the show (ie the PCs).

 

[tetsujin28]

I don't see a problem.

 

[Storminator]

I had a PC with a magic sword as a cohort. It wasn't real clear which was the real PC, the half-elf or the sword...

PS

 

[Morrow]

In Contact's Liberation of Tenn story hour Jespo Crimm is the character and Prince Thrommel is the cohort. Since the Prince obviously calls the shots, poor Jespo spends a good deal of time and effort convincing the Prince not to run off and get himself killed.

Morrow

 

[Silveras]

I guess the question is this: Did the cohort just deliver the party's message (or negotiate to achieve the party's goals), or did s/he change the message (or goals) as part of the negotiations ?

Having a more socially apt and eloquent mouthpiece do your speaking for you is a good use of resources (one which I wish my old players used more often... why they ALWAYS let the guys with the Charisma of 3 talk to the nobles is beyond me).

If the Cohort just managed the negotiations, but did not make decisions, then s/he did a fine supporting job. If the Cohort made decisions (especially concessions), then s/he may have overstepped the role. A Cohort is a (superior) follower, an assistant, by definition.