Controlling the Cohorts

[Glade Riven]

Cohorts, companions, mounts...I never seen anything in 3.5 or Pathfinder that cleared up who controlled them on the field of battle. Some of the wording indicates the DM, at other times indicates the player.

With the group that I had played with, the DM just let the players control them in battle, and he otherwise controlled them in role-playing situations (mainly conversations). That's all fine and dandy from the standpoint that it is one less thing for the DM to keep track of during the battle, but it can pull back on the immersion a bit (and gives an individual player more actions per round).

The alternative is that the DM controls the cohort/companion/mount (when the mount is not being ridden). Slap in some skill checks that need to be made by characters to get their orders across (and since skill checks take up time and space in a round) what was in one circumstance where it gave a player additional actions in around now takes time out of of their busy schedual of pummeling things into the ground. It also increases immersion and allows the DM to prevent cohort abuse.

I think in my next campaign I'll try the second method (DM control & skill checks), with the skill checks to communicate to the sidekick being 10 - the intellegence modifier of the animals (AKA a druid talking to his animal companion has to beat a check of 13) & something based on the leadership score for the cohorts and followers.

Thoughts?

 

[Mojo_Rat]

Genraly speaking Cohorts should be a calaborative effort between the PC and DM and my current group is using your first Mdel. My Pc controlls the cohort in combat and if my Dm feels the cohor has an opinion or similar he rp's her.

I just try to have her act as an independant character would or when appropriate following my characters orders.

The problem with your Dm controlls in combat bit is then it runs close to being a DMPC which it isnt supposed to be.

 

[Glade Riven]

*shrug* it's no worse than any other NPC, just slightly more permanent than a character that's along side for a single battle, or say, an enemy that ends up attached to the group thanks to good role-playing (I've had that happen - an ogre went from villain to hired porter). The problem with the DM PC is when they start stealing the lime-light and gets everything handed to them on a silver platter with the group marginalized and players resentful.

A cohort, being at least 2 levels behind and getting only a fraction of the XP as the heroes, should never overshadow the main PCs - no matter who is controlling them. The skill checks aren't arbitrary, but rather designed to add depth to the roleplaying experience.

One of the problems of having the cohort/companion/etc in control of the player is that it is easy (especially with the cohort) to end up sliding into being a second character. One campaign I played in had a fellow player who's cohort, being a magical craftsman, ended up solving a lot of the problems for the group. This left a bit of a deus ex machina feeling and victory felt really cheap. It also put a lot of extra abilities into the hands of a single player, more so than the other players in the group.

 

[Mojo_Rat]

Your example with the craftsman isnt an issue of Pc controling the cohort so much as the Pc DESIGNING the cohort. it comes dwn to the colaboratie process.

Ultimately the Cohort is somone that is attracted to your PC and wants to follow them for whatever reason. But ultimately the Dm should have final Say on what the Cohort is.

An explain from my current pathfinder game, im playing a Witch who worships Lamashtu. i wanted a Hag as a follower. I sent my Dm an exmmail explaining my aims and Goals and why i wanted a follower. (in this case mainly for part of a Coven) along with a bunch of my other plans.

He said No to the Hag for alot of legitimate reasons and Designed a Character based on the Ideas i had presented.

I think this really should be the model. to use. I get to have fun with my cohort it supports my goals and the Dm gets an NPC under my control hes comfortable with.

 

[IronWolf]

I think as others have stated that it should be a collaborative process between the player and the DM. Sort of a cross between a DMPC and a second character for the player.

The player can possibly suggest some options for the cohort/companion which the DM may take and use directly or tweak a little as they see fit. During combat I see it as going either way, the DM simply making the rules as if the cohort/companion were an NPC or a player doing it. This likely depends more on the group than a set of solid rules around the situation.

 

[Glade Riven]

I think the topic is going a little tangential...

I'm not arguing against collaboration between DM and player - in fact, I often work to include story elements that players are wanting (although not necessarily in the way they expect) into the campaign. I see the cohort no different.

And it would be funny if a druid tries to have his wolf track down someone and instead it brings back a squirrel.

 

[Mostlyjoe]

The way I run it is the players run the co-hort in battle with GM veto on any action that would be counter to their thinking.

ie. No suicide runs w/out good reason. Etc.

 

[BlubSeabass]

I would just do the first, but let the DM decide wether it goes with the personality of the cohort. Battles can have the craving to become too slow even without cohorts, and the checks would not only slow down the game, but push in a mandatory routine. Nobody likes mandatory routines.