Does defeating an NPC's cohort grant additional XP?

[Mistwell]

No, I'm not. Why? Because it is a ludicrous canard of no substance.

Saying that is the case does not make it so. Tell me how it is different. Deal with the charm person example mentioned elsewhere as well, while you are at it.

 

[Senoj]

Cohort Conundrum

The Leadership feat grants the ABILITY to attract a cohort, it does not automatically grant the cohort. So, the cohort will be counted as a part of the challenge, and thus grants experience.

 

[Mistwell]

By the way, total side note here. Monte Cook, who was part of the team that wrote the Leadership feat to begin with, strongly believes Leadership CAN be taken mutiple times, with the ability to attract multiple cohorts. In his private game, many of the players (all game writers, some of which still write for WOTC I believe) have taken the feat multiple times for their characters, and he says it's one of the most popular feats.

Not sure if anyone cares about that, but I thought it was interesting.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Interesting point. I guess the same would apply to any magic item since they all require a "feat" to make.

Well, it's the same analogy.

So a 5th level wizard with a wand of fireballs (which he made himself) should be a higher level challenge than a 5th level wizard who instead spent his feat on empower spell?

I don't see how you get this interpretation at all, from either side's comments.

The difference between traps and items and cohorts are that in order to create them and "additional" expenditure of other assets is required. Magic items require gp and xp traps require gp.

No resources are required to be expended for cohorts at all. Not money and not XP. Nothing. The character has the ability to attract a cohort and followers, but does not need to, but he certainly spends no resources for it.

Leadership is not a bonus feat for any of the core classes and so requires expenditure of a character level feat - a bit more restrictive and expensive in the long run.

More expensive and restrictive than what, exactly? And, by expensive, you mean the use of a feat? I seem to recall that the feat is used as a prerequisite for a PrC or two. If so, you can take it and not even have a cohort and it would still be valuable. Having a cohort that then takes no resources from you or your party, requires no XP, is not equivalent to the extra resources that making a trap or magic item consume.

Note also that if you adopt the idea that having Leadership grants you a cohort, you need to seriously consider that as a feat in balance with other feats. So, the player decides his PC will take Leadership (regardless of what the DM desires, right?) and demands his cohort + some number of followers. How does the addition of an NPC only two levels lower compare with any other feat choice? If you asked a player of a 9th level PC, "Okay, you can either take Dodge or the loyal services (free of charge and XP) of a 7th level character." Which do you think they'd choose? Leadership is not balanced with respect to other feats.

 

[Mistwell]

By the way (sorry for another side note), having just re-read the entire write-up for the leadership feat, I think it is one of the very few things specifically intended to be a PC-only feat.

Many times the description seems to imply it is not a feat that is intended for use by NPCs, but ONLY for player characters. I could be wrong on that, but it's the sense I get from reading the feat. NPCs don't need leadership to gain the ability to attract followers - it's built into the game that they get followers and cohorts as deemed necessary by the DM without a feat, at any time the DM decides to let them have such cohorts and followers.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Thanks to all who responded.

Here is some interesting math that may further muddy the water.

11th level party vs. CR 9 foe --> 1,650 XP
11th level party vs. CR 11 foe --> 3,300 XP
11th level party vs. CR 12 foe --> 4,950 XP

1650 + 3300 = 4950

So whether you consider this a fight versus (a CR 11 foe and a CR 9 foe) or a fight versus (a CR 11 foe who is significantly more powerful and thus counts as a CR 12 foe), the resulting XP is exactly the same.

 

[irdeggman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by irdeggman
So a 5th level wizard with a wand of fireballs (which he made himself) should be a higher level challenge than a 5th level wizard who instead spent his feat on empower spell?

I don't see how you get this interpretation at all, from either side's comments.

This was to equate to the discussion pertaining to traps and skill focus: trapmaking. If a character makes better traps due to taking a feat does that character ahve any intrinisically higher CR? No he doesn't, neither does a wizard with a wand of fireballs - that was the point I was trying to make. I hope it didn't further confuse it any here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irdeggman
The difference between traps and items and cohorts are that in order to create them and "additional" expenditure of other assets is required. Magic items require gp and xp traps require gp.

No resources are required to be expended for cohorts at all. Not money and not XP. Nothing. The character has the ability to attract a cohort and followers, but does not need to, but he certainly spends no resources for it.

Which is why traps have their own CR and yield xp when overcome. Magic items while they don't give xp just by overcoming them they are valuable "booty" that PCs can usually use in the future, at the very least they can sell them for substantial money (considereing they didn't have to spend anything to make them). Cohorts don't yield any effective booty, I still hold to equating them to familiars, animal companions and even special mounts in regards to awarding xp- especially if the "improved" versions are taken using appropriate feats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irdeggman
Leadership is not a bonus feat for any of the core classes and so requires expenditure of a character level feat - a bit more restrictive and expensive in the long run.

More expensive and restrictive than what, exactly? And, by expensive, you mean the use of a feat? I seem to recall that the feat is used as a prerequisite for a PrC or two. If so, you can take it and not even have a cohort and it would still be valuable. Having a cohort that then takes no resources from you or your party, requires no XP, is not equivalent to the extra resources that making a trap or magic item consume.

Note also that if you adopt the idea that having Leadership grants you a cohort, you need to seriously consider that as a feat in balance with other feats. So, the player decides his PC will take Leadership (regardless of what the DM desires, right?) and demands his cohort + some number of followers. How does the addition of an NPC only two levels lower compare with any other feat choice? If you asked a player of a 9th level PC, "Okay, you can either take Dodge or the loyal services (free of charge and XP) of a 7th level character." Which do you think they'd choose? Leadership is not balanced with respect to other feats.

One - that is why Leadership is specifically listed as an "optional" feat for the DM to allow or not with a warning that it may unbalance the game. Hence if a Dm allows the feat into a game and doesn't alow the PC to gain cohorts and followers then he is doing the system an injustice - better to not allow the feat at all if it is not going to be used the way it is written (and obviously intended to be).

Two - not all feats are created equal (we agree on that). Leadership is an expensive feat in that it gives a single cohort (up to 2 levels lower than the PC) and some followers. But these are only as useful as the situation that the DM allows them to be used in. If for example the DM has a lot of individual interaction - a cohort is not generally as useful as when used in a dungeon crawl type of setting.

Would a rogue with TWF not be much more powerful than one with power attack? I believe the inherent advantage of a rogue using TWF has been covered in great detail on these boards in the past.

As far as the feat being a prerequisite for certain prestige classes - well there are plenty of examples where feats like endurance are prerequisites so this is really not a well placed example, IMO.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The Leadership feat grants the ABILITY to attract a cohort, it does not automatically grant the cohort. So, the cohort will be counted as a part of the challenge, and thus grants experience.

Isn't that true with all feats? Power Attack grants the ABILITY to do more damage by sacrificing "to hit". It doesn't automatically grant the damage during every attack. Maximize Spell grants the ABILITY to do max damage with a spell, it does not automatically grant maximized damage on every spell you cast.

 

[Infiniti2000]

First, good responses, irdeggman. I'm enjoying this discussion.

This was to equate to the discussion pertaining to traps and skill focus: trapmaking. If a character makes better traps due to taking a feat does that character ahve any intrinisically higher CR? No he doesn't, neither does a wizard with a wand of fireballs - that was the point I was trying to make. I hope it didn't further confuse it any here.

You were responding to me, so I couldn't tell whether you were trying to rebut a point I made or what. For the record, I said nothing about skill focus. I was merely comparing a trap that the BBEG made and spent money on (using his own resources). Spending his money is considered as much a resource as his feat selection.

Which is why traps have their own CR and yield xp when overcome. Magic items while they don't give xp just by overcoming them they are valuable "booty" that PCs can usually use in the future, at the very least they can sell them for substantial money (considereing they didn't have to spend anything to make them). Cohorts don't yield any effective booty, I still hold to equating them to familiars, animal companions and even special mounts in regards to awarding xp- especially if the "improved" versions are taken using appropriate feats.

Trap indeed can be booty. A disarmed, but not destroyed trap could be taken by the rogue and reused or sold elsewhere. Regardless, the correlation is that traps require resources to build (in the form of money and time, though time is a little subjective for a resource in D&D campaigns, and as others have pointed out, possibly in feats and skill points), just like cohorts via the leadership feat require resources to obtain (a feat and time only, no money required though I'd guess most DM's would require money to some degree) and magical items require resources to build/buy.

An animal companion requires no resources at all (unless you consider the 1 day ceremony). It in fact takes nothing at all away from the character, even when (not if ) it perishes. A familiar takes away when it perishes, and unlike the animal companion it requires the same day plus some money. Both are clearly class features though. You get them whether you want them or not. A druid not obtaining an animal companion is not taking advantage of all of his class features. The same thing with a wizard (let's ignore the debate on how useful a familiar is though -- I personally think they suck, especially compared to an animal companion).

One - that is why Leadership is specifically listed as an "optional" feat for the DM to allow or not with a warning that it may unbalance the game. Hence if a Dm allows the feat into a game and doesn't alow the PC to gain cohorts and followers then he is doing the system an injustice - better to not allow the feat at all if it is not going to be used the way it is written (and obviously intended to be).

I agree. But, it is not optional in d20. I don't have the DMG with me right now to confirm whether that is a change in 3.5 or not. Fwiw, if it really is optional, then granting XP or not is also optional because it's essentially a houserule anyway.

As far as the feat being a prerequisite for certain prestige classes - well there are plenty of examples where feats like endurance are prerequisites so this is really not a well placed example, IMO.

That example was only intended to 'prove' that Leadership is a possibility even if you do not gain any cohorts or followers.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Isn't that true with all feats? Power Attack grants the ABILITY to do more damage by sacrificing "to hit". It doesn't automatically grant the damage during every attack. Maximize Spell grants the ABILITY to do max damage with a spell, it does not automatically grant maximized damage on every spell you cast.

Yes, but there's a subtle difference. A character who chooses PA as a feat will immediately and irrevocably (sans strength loss) have access to it. A character who choose Leadership will immediately and irrevocably have access to obtain a cohort. But, he does not gain the cohort and cannot immediately have a cohort. In other words, the cohort and followers do not show up as soon as the character chooses Leadership (though the group can play it that way).