Question Regarding Cohorts (& Leadership)

[dvvega]

I'm not sure how a cohort fits into the experience point scheme of things and would like the "rules" answer please or at least where to find it.

If a character takes Leadership and gets a cohort. Let us say a 13th level character has an 8th level cohort.

Does the cohort count as a party member for experience point calculations (adding 1 to the number of the party)? Or is the cohort part of the 13th level character therefore does not count for calculations and receives another amount of XP ... how much would be the next question.

Thank you in Advance

 

[UltimaGabe]

You see, there are two completely different descriptions of Cohorts in the Dungeon Master's Guide- one of them says that he gets experience separate from the rest of the party, whereas the other (the one in the Leadership description) says that he's counted as another person in the party. So if you're getting a cohort from the leadership feat, you should probably go by that one.

So, let's say you have a party of 3 level 10 characters, and a level 8 cohort. When you get XP at the end, you have to divide up the XP among 4 people, not just 3. However, in our games, we rule that cohorts do not count when determining the average party level, since cohorts HAVE to be a lower level than their leader. Otherwise, someone could just get a level 1 cohort and get twice as much experience, since their average level is lower.

 

[drnuncheon]

In 3.0, he was counted as a member of the party, but was only given a half share of XP (DMG 46).

In 3.5 they are not counted as party members for XP calculations - instead they earn XP at a rate based on the ratio of their level and the PC whose cohort they are (but can never be higher than 2 levels below their PC).

The text in the Leadership description implies that a cohort takes XP from the party, but it's the same text that was there in the 3.0 DMG, which makes me think that it was overlooked when the Cohor XP rules were revised.

J

 

[evilbob]

drnuncheon is completely right. You get a cohort from taking a feat, and you wouldn't penalize the party's XP if someone took weapon specialization, right? One person chose to do more damage every attack, and another chose to have an expendable buddy.

Besides, sometimes the cohort can be a mount or an animal companion, and paladins and druids don't incur XP drains from their pets, either.

 

[UltimaGabe]

You get a cohort from taking a feat, and you wouldn't penalize the party's XP if someone took weapon specialization, right?

If that were the case, why would anyone NOT take Leadership? Who the heck would waste a feat on a measly +1 to attack (Weapon Focus) when they could have another person to attack, cast spells, or even provide another target in battle? Having a cohort is MUCH more powerful than any other feat, and therefore there should be some sort of drawback. Which would you rather have- 2 extra damage on each attack, or another person doing just as much damage as you every round?

There HAS to be a drawback to having a cohort. The entire party benefits from having a cohort (especially if that cohort is a Cleric or Wizard), so why should the party not have to pay for it?

 

[evilbob]

There HAS to be a drawback to having a cohort. The entire party benefits from having a cohort (especially if that cohort is a Cleric or Wizard), so why should the party not have to pay for it?

They typically do pay for it, litterally - with a portion of the treasure. If not the whole party, then the person with the cohort - again, creating a drawback.

Again: the paladin's mount magically appears out of nowhere and gives him the ability to ride around smiting foes. The wizard casts Summon Creature __ and a powerful monster shows up for a few rounds. Neither of these situations draw XP - why should expendable buddies?

It's similar to the same reason you don't get extra XP for killing summoned creatures - they were summoned by the thing you were fighting as part of their ability to fight. You wouldn't get extra XP for killing someone just because they do +2 damage on every hit.

 

[UltimaGabe]

It's similar to the same reason you don't get extra XP for killing summoned creatures - they were summoned by the thing you were fighting as part of their ability to fight. You wouldn't get extra XP for killing someone just because they do +2 damage on every hit.

That's irrelevant. What you're saying is that it's perfectly logical to add another PC (albeit 2 levels lower than the rest of the party) and not have to divide up the experienc? Then why not just have two actual PCs, and just have the other two players play cohorts? It would definitely mean extra XP for the rest of the party, and wouldn't cost anything.

I just don't get it. If you have four PCs, and one of them is 2 levels lower than the rest of the party, they get a share of XP. But if you take a feat and get another PC (granted, that PC isn't necessarily played by a player, but they're contributing just as much resources as any other PC of 2 levels lower), they DON'T have to contribute XP? Why not? They're doing just as much work as any other PC. They're fighting just as many other monsters as other PCs. They're using up just as many spells as any other PCs. They're doing exactly what another PC would do, and yet you're saying they wouldn't count when taking XP.

I ask you again, why doesn't everyone have Leadership if it means free PCs without losing XP?

 

[evilbob]

There are lots of reasons not to have the Leadership feat; most people don't take it. Not wanting to keep track of it is a big one. Not wanting to give up a large portion of the treasure is another. (Try to imagine one PC dividing his treasure between two characters - neither one would be as effective.) The DM is free to disallow the feat if he thinks it will be too much to keep up with or too unbalancing. Cha is typically a dump stat, meaning your cohort would be more than 2 levels lower than you. There's also a huge role-playing aspect ("yeah guys, but where does Timmy sleep?") that can get in the way.

One thing I don't think you're adequately considering is how much less powerful a cohort is - truly - than another PC. A cohort doesn't have "1st string" equipment, is always behind in level no matter what, and honestly does not do nearly as much in battle as another PC. They are also the most likely to be killed ("let's see what Timmy thinks of that magical, glowing doorway..."). I think a wizard with "spell focus (conjuration)" as a feat is going to have a better time effecting battles than a character with a cohort.

Fighters don't typically take leadership, but they do take weapon specialization because it is better for them to do +2 damage on every hit rather than have another little guy getting in their way, missing often, and taking that +2 sword before he can sell it.

Everything has pluses and minuses; if you aren't seeing one or the other, then you probably haven't thought it all the way through. For the leadership feat, an additional XP drain would make it worthless.

 

[dvvega]

From what I've gathered there is a conflict in the rules, some thing it is an oversight from the previous version, others think there should be some payment for having this extra person.

So I'm looking for an answer. I can see both sides of the argument. A feat is a feat, everyone gets feats, but Leadership is powerful and so XP expenditure isn't out of line.

Any other suggestions?

 

[UltimaGabe]

My suggestion is this- follow the rules and don't speculate anything. The Leadership description specifically states that cohorts count as another person when determining XP, and therefore should be treated as such. Regardless of whether they made a mistake or not, it was not Errata'd (as far as I know) and therefore any speculation is just that- speculation. By the rules, cohorts take up XP from the group. Plain and simple.