Question Regarding Cohorts (& Leadership)

[mikebr99]

You get a character who doesn't care about spotlight time, won't whinge about kill stealing, doesn't complain about XP, and is happy to act as a mobile hospital, utility caster or damage sponge, as dictated by the needs of the party.

Didn't I see that on a sign above the door into the FR Henchmans Guild Local 482 in Waterdeep last week???


Mike

 

[Liquidsabre]

Ack, way off base here Pax. Calm down and breath mate, don't let prior bad experiences muddy your views too much now. Leadership is a great feat and can greatly benefit the party as a whole if they allow for it.

 

[Trainz]

"What is WRONG with you and "ae" ?" -- T

If you're gonna quote me, use my full nick'.

BTW, I agree with Pax and you both. In fact, I think this is a canonical case of two guys having close to the same opinion in two different languages.

Ah... semantics. Plural semantae.

 

[Storm Raven]

As someone who took Leadership in 3.0, let me tell you, the XP I was draining from the party did not make me popular.

Did you also point out to the other party members that the "loss" was likely more than offset by the fact that the cohort reduced the average party level when calculating xp? (If cohorts cost experience points, then they should also count when calculating average party level).

 

[Scion]

Ack, way off base here Pax. Calm down and breath mate, don't let prior bad experiences muddy your views too much now. Leadership is a great feat and can greatly benefit the party as a whole if they allow for it.

Which part is he offbase on exactly? The cohort can be for just about anything, especially if it is something that the character who got the cohort is bad at. Either way, there are tons of uses, but since the cohort is usually at least a couple of levels behind it isnt terribly useful compared to what other pc's in the group would be able to do.

And to go along with drnuncheon and a few others above, in 3.0 they took some exp from the party, but they also made the average party level a bit lower usually, although sometimes that wasnt as noticeable as the amount of exp that was 'lost'. In 3.5 there is no exp gain or loss, the characters are merely there. It is a powerful feat, but still has its limitations. In a lot of ways it is better to get another feat instead, but some people prefer to go either way. Shouldnt be a problem here.

 

[Tatsukun]

Did you also point out to the other party members that the "loss" was likely more than offset by the fact that the cohort reduced the average party level when calculating xp? (If cohorts cost experience points, then they should also count when calculating average party level).

Um, I think you are still thinking 3.0 here. In 3.5, everyone gets Exp bases on their level, not the party level. The party level is only for figuring out what EL is a good challenge.

If you have three level 10 guys and a level 2, and they kill a CR 10 monster, the level 2 guy gets (10,800 / 4 ) 2,700 Exp.

The level 10 guys get (3,000 / 4) 750 Exp. each.

In 3.5 anyone behind in level will catch up quickly. That (In my very rarely humble opinion) is why cohorts don't get Exp. as a PC (the would catch up too quickly).

Also, I don't think anyone has mentioned that a cohort has NPC gear / stats. In my game, they have a 20 point buy for stats, which allows the PC's to really shine and the cohort to be better than the average guy (who IMC has a 15 point buy).

-Tatsu

 

[irdeggman]

Pg 106 of the DMG "The cohort gets his gear as an NPC."

Now it does state that having cohorts (purely a DM's option in fact it suggests that the DM is free to disallow the feat entirely due to these issues) may cause problems with player's sharing their playing time, and treasure with an NPC. So basically the things that people are most concerned with have been pointed out and it is up to the DM to make the decision as whether or not cohorts fit into his setting.

 

[Pax]

It doesn't. You're free to use Leadership in any way you please, just as you're free to use any other feat. You can use Expertise when fighting things that can never hit you, for example. You would be stupid to do so, of course, but being stupid has always been a player prerogative. Far be it from me to disallow people the option of being stupid.

If it doesn't say that, then don't hold it up like it's a rules-based argument.

Because they will get hit and die, as you so ingeniously pointed out yourself. But assuming that they didn't, that would indeed be a fine use of a cohort: to act as a meatshield optimised for defense. With profligate use of Expertise and fighting defensively they likely would never hit anything worth a damn either, and do relatively small amounts of damage when they do hit (compared to an offensive-oriented tank). Hence "supporting character" role.

I'd advise you to read what you're dismissing. The concept is, the defense-oriented fighter is using the "Attack to aid another" action, as well as moving to flanking position on whichever beasty his "PC buddy" is fighting. If the PC is a rogue, that dramatically increases his combat effectiveness, without directly benefitting anyone else in the party (and as for indirect benefits ... feh, the party gets plenty of similar "indirect benefits" if the fighter has a good magic sword, but THAT doesn't cost them any XP ...).

As a direct result, this character will never swing to hit an AC higher than 10. And even fighting defensively AND making the maximum use out of Combat Expertise ... that's going to be a very easy AC to hit: with a net of +0 to hit, that's still a 50/50 chance; +5, and it's 75% likely to succeed; at +9 or more, it becomes "don't roll a 1".

If the cohort is a swashbuckler/duellist, their AC can be "sufficient"; a defending weapon, a nice buckler, maybe some "Castoff" quality bracers of armor, good Dexterity and Intelligence ... throw in neat tricks like Elusive Target and similar, and his survivability goes way up.

Meanwhile, this cohort's entire raison d'etre[i/] is to provide flanking to his Rogue buddy, and take the attack to aid another action so that the rogue is more likely to hit. He's not around to rush to the aid of anyof hte other PC's; depending on his alignment, he might (or might not) doso anyway. But if left to choose between saving the Rogue, or the Wizard ... the rogue is who the cohort follows, so the rogue is who the cohort saves!

Canonical means "generally accepted" as well. Learn the lingo.

I suggest you ensure your own TOTAL expertise with the language, before posting statements like that.

Main Entry: ca·non·i·cal
Pronunciation: -ni-k&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or forming a canon
2 : conforming to a general rule or acceptable procedure : ORTHODOX
3 : of or relating to a clergyman who is a canon
4 : reduced to the canonical form <a canonical matrix>
- ca·non·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb

And "canon" itself comes out:

Main Entry: ¹can·on
Pronunciation: 'ka-n&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Latin, ruler, rule, model, standard, from Greek kanOn
1 a : a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council b : a provision of canon law
2 [Middle English, prob. from Old French, from Late Latin, from Latin, model] : the most solemn and unvarying part of the Mass including the consecration of the bread and wine
3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b : the authentic works of a writer c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>
4 a : an accepted principle or rule b : a criterion or standard of judgment c : a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms
5 [Late Greek kanOn, from Greek, model] : a contrapuntal musical composition in two or more voice parts in which the melody is imitated exactly and completely by the successive voices though not always at the same pitch
synonym see LAW

Between those two, when discussing the rules-based mechanics of a game, I think it is clear that "canonical" should and does - when properly used - refer to the rules, not to what hong happens to think is the most efficient (mis)use of said rules.

Where does it say the purpose of Leadership is to generate a "party medic" ... ?

Far be it from me to give you chapter and verse regarding precedent.

Translation: Far be it from you, to back up your wild and unsupported claims and misrepresentations, with any actual references to the RAW.

Why? Why can't you have a sorceror with Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, Spectral Hand / Vampiric Touch, and other "no save allowed" spells ... ?

You can, of course. You would then have to deal with the piddling issue of having to break through SR with a caster level check up to 6 lower than everyone else, and a similarly nerfed touch attack. But as said above, that's your prerogative.

The touch attack can be solved with a True Strike spell, and similar. The SR - well, that character wouldn't far as well against higher-SR creatires, but that's hardly going to be the MAJORITY of encounters the party has!

A cohort, being a character that exists in an auxiliary role to a player's primary character, has no need for spotlight time and therefore can quite reasonably be treated as a wallflower.

"Wallflower" means a character who stands on the sidelines and does nothing during an encounter - basically, what one woudl expect from your "party medic" sort of character.

Are you finished choking your strawman yet?

There's no straw man here, and besides, I'd much rather choke you; I'm sure that would be ever so pleasant!

But the Cohort sticks to the character who took the leadership feat;

See comment about "teamwork" above.

That's not a matter of teamwork. The paladin's mount isn't going to feel as loyal to the party rogue or barbarian, as it feels to the paladin. Similarly, the rogue's fighter/duellist cohort isn't going to feel as loyal to the wizard as she feels towards the rogue. After all, the rogue spent the feat to get the cohort!

Why are you so paranoid about a cohort's loyalties? Do you commonly play in games where everyone is out to slit everyone else's throats? If so, see again comment about "teamwork" above.

And why do you so readily equate an unequal degree of loyalty with a situation in which backstabbing and betrayal are rampant? One can be lacking in especial loyalty to someone, and not be inclined to "slit [their] throats". "Not being loyal" is not the same as "being an enemy".

I am, for example, not in any way loyal to the nation of ... oh, say ... Belgium. But I hold no enmity for that nation, nor for it's people. I am, one might say ... entirely neutral towards Belgium and it's people. *gasp!*

You get a character who doesn't care about spotlight time, won't whinge about kill stealing, doesn't complain about XP, and is happy to act as a mobile hospital, utility caster or damage sponge, as dictated by the needs of the party. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me!

No, not "as dictated by the needs of the party" ... try "as dictated by the needs and desires of the character who actually took the feat in question".

Alternatively, if you have a cohort that does add significantly to combat power, then effectively you have another PC, allowing you to face tougher challenges or survive existing challenges more easily than otherwise. Thus you should be perfectly willing to divvy out the XP accordingly.

If it's not my cohort, it's not getting any of my XP; it's just that simple. If I take the Improved Familiar feat, and get a much more combat-worthy familiar than normal ... that doesn't cost me, or anyone else, any XP; the beneits to the whole party would be measurably similar to having a cohort around. So why, then, should the sidekick someone else gets with Leadership, or similar, cost anyone XP?

Tell me again what that specific example has to do with PCs who are not paladins, which happens to be the great majority of PCs out there.

Paladins are the most likely folks to have a mount - but not the only ones. Other examples include the Halfling Outrider (Complete Warrior), Aglarondan Griffonrider (Unapproachable East), Shaaryan Hunter (Player's Guide to Faerun), and Dragonrider (Draconomicon). And those are just examples of PrC's whose abilities revolve around fighting while mounted, and/or who gain significant advantages when mounted.

An ordinary fighter could choose to be a mounted warrior, as could a cleric, rogue, etc. And a cohort-mount would be much more likely to survive a combat, than an ordinary "off the shelf" mount!

But other than making the paladin more capable in and out of combat, that particular cohort isn't going to benefit the party, now, is it?

What?

Has your already apparently-minimal proficiency with the english language failed you yet again? Allow me, then, to elucidate: other thanmaking the paladin more capable in combat - much as a better magic sword would, or a magic item that provided some similarly-measurable numeric benefit - a cohort-mount is of no direct benefit to the rest of the party.

So why should anyone else be amortising the level advancement of the Paladin's Cohort?

Because anything the paladin's cohort kills is therefore not killing the rest of you?

Then why don't you reduce everyone's XP awards when the fighter gets a nice new magic sword? Isn't it true that anythign the sword helps to kill, isn't killing the rest of the party?

What about a Druid's animal companion? Anything it kills, isn't killing the rest of the party, either. Why doesn't the Animal Companion also cost everyone XP ... ?

...

So, are you done choking your straw man?

Ack, way off base here Pax. Calm down and breath mate, don't let prior bad experiences muddy your views too much now. Leadership is a great feat and can greatly benefit the party as a whole if they allow for it.

The point is, the cohort isn't required to be of benefit to the party, it is only required to be of benefit to the one character who took the actual feat. ERgo, other members of the party should not be penalised by receiving less experience points simply because the cohort is hanging around ...

 

[Tatsukun]

I suggest you ensure your own TOTAL expertise with the language, before posting statements like that.

There's no straw man here, and besides, I'd much rather choke you; I'm sure that would be ever so pleasant!

Not cool dude, just not cool.

Really, if rules arguments on the internet get you this hot, maybe you need a break from D&D.

Try to keep it civil here, huh?

-Tatsu

 

[Alejandro]

Uh, Pax -- 3.5 cohorts do not penalize anyone xp-wise.