Healing NPC's

[JoeBlank]

instead of an NPC cleric, how about the Healer from the D&D Miniatures Handbook? It starts out less combat worthy.

Curious to hear whether anyone has used this class yet. It seems interesting to me, but would be difficult to handle as PC. Would make a fantastic NPC and/or cohort.

 

[Wolffenjugend]

I will become filthy rich and appropriate all my comrades belongings, this, Heironeous, I swear on my heart and soul !

Whoops! That's Poverty and Non-Violence, hehehe...

 

[Wolffenjugend]

Curious to hear whether anyone has used this class yet. It seems interesting to me, but would be difficult to handle as PC. Would make a fantastic NPC and/or cohort.

It would be useful as a healer, but IIRC it's significantly underpowered for a (PC) class.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Erm...cohorts are always under player control. Check out page 106 of the DMG. I don't know many people that would even bother with the feat if the DM had control over the cohort.

Has this changed so much since 3E?

In the 3E DMG, p148, it suggests that the DM might consider allowing a PC to control the cohort as a secondary character, to alleviate some of the DM's load, if the cohort is well-treated and loyal. It warns that not all players can handle running two characters, though.

The strong implication is that having cohorts under player control is the exception, not the rule; generally, a cohort will do what his master tells him to, but he's still an NPC with his own personality - he's not Dominated.

What does the 3.5 DMG say?

-Hyp.

 

[Trainz]

Has this changed so much since 3E?

In the 3E DMG, p148, it suggests that the DM might consider allowing a PC to control the cohort as a secondary character, to alleviate some of the DM's load, if the cohort is well-treated and loyal. It warns that not all players can handle running two characters, though.

The strong implication is that having cohorts under player control is the exception, not the rule; generally, a cohort will do what his master tells him to, but he's still an NPC with his own personality - he's not Dominated.

What does the 3.5 DMG say?

-Hyp.

p. 106: "ATTRACTING COHORTS: [...]A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under that player's control[...]"

But it's good to note on page 104: "COHORTS:[...] Mistreated cohorts become disloyal and eventually leave or even seak revenge against their employers.[...]"

Basically this means that the player has the cohort's character sheet, and generally tells the DM what he does in a fight, but I would leave the role-playing of the cohort to the DM, and important cohort decisions to the DM.

Player: "My cohort, Kelvin, decides to go ahead of us with his torch to scout."

DM: "Kelvin looks at the dragon claw marks on the walls and says "sorry boss... you first" ".

 

[Old Gumphrey]

...

I would take the DMG's ruling to mean that you have full control over your cohort, except in situations (as noted above) where you try abusing your power. When I said you have control of your cohort I wasn't implying that you should have utter dominance over them; simply that (like the DMG states) they are another PC under your direct control. Good roleplaying (not sending a sorcerer cohort ahead to "scout" in a dark cave with a torch) comes from good roleplaying, not a rule set.

People make bad decisions for their own characters all the time and typically get angry when someone questions whether or not the action is "in-character". An important thing to consider is where "roleplaying" ends and "abuse" begins. Using a summoned monster to trip a trap is fine; it's a spell that you cast to do a specific job. Using a cohort to trip a trap should net the same result as asking your fellow PCs to do the same. It shouldn't be hard for any sane player to realize that is generally not acceptable.

I believe you should be fully allowed to roleplay your cohorts (I've done all of mine as a player so far) and determine their gross physical and personal qualities (if you want to); but it should be plain to any gaming group when a given cohort would not perform a given action.

Using the abuse example should not be a back door to cripple any players, though. If your cohort is a dedicated scout (such as a rogue- or ranger-type) he should be more than willing to go first down that dark tunnel to see what's going on. If your party is evil (or even neutral) goading could work to a point (likely depending on the ethical axis of the cohort's alignment). A LE cohort might just go down that tunnel to win respect if his master chastises him for balking. But he'd also net that -2 modifier to his next cohort if this one dies (as a result of his master's actions).

 

[shilsen]

One solution someone suggested on these boards which has a lot of merit IMO, is to have another player run the cohort.

 

[JoeBlank]

It would be useful as a healer, but IIRC it's significantly underpowered for a (PC) class.

I think I agree, but I can't figure out why I am so tempted by the Healer class. I may just have to play one sometime and see how it works out. I guess I could play a healer-type just as well using a Favored Soul and mostly healing spells.

Or maybe one of the new classes in UA will work.

 

[JoeBlank]

Upon further review, the Healer is a sub-par class. He is not even the best at healing, falling behind the Cleric and the Favored Soul, thanks to spontaneous casting. The various Cleanse abilities make the Healer decent at curing problems other than HP damage, but this is nothing that a properly prepared Cleric could not do, even by keeping a few scrolls on hand.

The class should have all good saves and at least 6 skill points/level, to be anywhere close to balanced.

 

[Lela]

One solution someone suggested on these boards which has a lot of merit IMO, is to have another player run the cohort.

I've seen it done when there were only two players in the campaign and they were seperated. While bouncing back and forth each player played the other's cohort.