Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="irdeggman" data-source="post: 1737982" data-attributes="member: 16285">I have to disagree.The table lists cohort for max level to be attracted. No number because there is no limit so how would you list infinite?  This is probably the same reason that no one has found anything that says the feat can be taken mutliple times.  Basically it is not necessary since nothing is gained by doing it. Much of the descriptive text is written in plural if that helps."Cohorts are loyal servants who follow a particular character or sometimes a group of characters." If it had meant singular it would have read "A cohort is. . .""They are hired by. . ." Again it would have read "He/she is hired by. . ."And so on and so on. . .Also as far as the 'employed' statement "They are hired by or seek out a PC or PCs, and they work out a deal agreeable to both parties so that the NPC works for thechracters."  So they are always paid or otherwise compensated, depending on the agreement.  It could just be tutalege (spelling).  Hey it is another example of the plural use of cohorts.Having gone on that tirade, I am not saying that limiting a character to only 1 cohort at a time is wrong. Game balance wise it can be very accurate. I'm only stating that the rules don't automatically limit a character to only 1 cohort. And the use of this feat is very DM intensive and controlling for game-balance play-balance reasons.If you recall the 2nd ed equivalent (henchmen) there was a limit based on the character's charisma score.  But this wasn't a limit of only 1 at a time (unless the charisma score made it so).  This wasn't unbalanced in 2nd ed anymore than allowing multiple cohorts would be unbalanced in 3.5, as long as the DM manages things accordingly.I am interested in something more concrete than IIRC Monte Cooke said something. . .  So that I can revise my opinion here.</blockquote>

Verification