Question Regarding Cohorts (& Leadership)

[Scion]

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

Of course, since he is responding to hong nothing that pax says can go 'over the line'

 

[hong]

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

Which part of "you don't know how to use Leadership" constitutes a rules-based argument, Paxie?

I'd advise you to read what you're dismissing.

The use of italics is not a substitute for clear thinking.

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.

Sure. And if you want to send someone 4 levels lower than the average PC into combat, where they are most likely going to die, that's your business. Or have you already forgotten

Mini You, predictably, gets killed by the monsters (their CR is six over his level, that makes it a nightmare encounter for him!);

If the PC is a rogue, that dramatically increases his combat effectiveness, without directly benefitting anyone else in the party

Your ability to distinguish between direct and indirect is... interesting.

(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 ...).

A magic sword is typically obtained by work. You either accumulate the gold from adventuring to buy one, or you take it off the body of a monster that you kill. You do not need to work to get a cohort. And if you really think a cohort is no better than a magic sword, you don't know how to use Leadership. Actually, I might have said this before.

As a direct result, this character will never swing to hit an AC higher than 10.

And never actually cause damage to anything either, and thus gain minimal spotlight time. Do you have any idea what the term "supporting cast" means? Would _you_ like to take the place of the flanking, aiding-another meatshield sometime, Paxie?

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".

This ability of yours to digress meaninglessly is truly fascinating. I conjecture it is related to the use of boldface.

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.

Lorem ipsum dolor, etcetera.

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!

Is this relevant to anything, or are you just glad to see me?

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

Or perhaps I should just post everything in boldface.

And "canon" itself comes out:

Woo, Pax can look up a dictionary.

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.

While you're at it, look up "euphemism" and "metaphor".

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

No, Paxie, despite your unparalleled ability to digress, this argument has nothing to do with the RAW. Try again.

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!

I predict this will be on your PC's headstone when he dies.

And you really should make up your mind. Is the cohort a useful addition to party firepower, or not?

"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.

Did you get that out of your dictionary as well?

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

Damn, Paxie's head is explodiating already. That was fast.

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.

Please not to confuse loyalty with teamwork. You can have group that functions like a well-oiled machine in combat, where the characters feel no great loyalty to each other. Conversely, you can have a group where people would die for each other, and indeed often do so, because they don't have a clue how to cooperate in a fight.

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!

So?

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".

The question is, why do [boldface][italics][allcaps]YOU[/allcaps][/italics][/boldface] seem to conflate the issue of teamwork with loyalty?

So, do you, or do you not, regularly play in games where characters slit each others' throats? Enquiring minds want to know!

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!*

Not that this digression had anything to do with the topic, but hey, don't let me stop you. In fact, you've had so many digressions I feel compelled to add my own, just to avoid feeling inadequate.

You know, I've always thought that the evolution of sports these days was a very interesting topic. Prior to the coming of mass media, sports were primarily participant-directed: what was most important was what the players themselves liked, what they wanted out of the game, and so on. But in this day and age, sports are becoming more and more audience-directed: what matters is what the spectator wants. The spectator brings ratings and advertising income, which is what the major networks are after. The sport itself is incidental to that; from their point of view, it could be football, swimming, cooking or toenail clipping, the details are irrelevant. Not suprisingly, what matters most to the spectator is spectacle. No more stoppages of play or rules that are hard to observe. This is seen in how the laws of rugby have been changed a dozen times since the 90s in an effort to speed up play and reduce emphasis on kicking. Kicking is a tactic that's been part of the game for centuries, and has won many games especially in heavy conditions, but these days, a fly-half is judged increasingly on their ability to play with the ball in hand. This is a trend that's more advanced in southern hemisphere nations, as evidenced by the label that's been attached to Super 12 as a "15-man sevens" tournament. While I'm all for spectacle, and overall the changes have been good for me and good for the game, I do wonder about the overall direction the game is going. Is rugby going to evolve into a quasi-league game, where scrums, lineouts and mauls are de-emphasised in favour of endless rucks? I don't think this is good; wanting more continuity is one thing, but it also results in predictability, the bugbear of league. This is certainly a fascinating topic and I look forward to seeing further developments in the period leading up to the next World Cup.

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".

Why do you think these are mutually exclusive?

If it's not my cohort, it's not getting any of my XP; it's just that simple.

You have a misguided sense of ownership. It's not your XP, boldface notwithstanding. It's the party's XP, to be divided among members. By this argument, if the group got a new PC, they shouldn't get any of "your" XP either.

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?

1. Improved Familiar didn't exist in 3.0 core, which is when cohorts got a share of XP. T&B doesn't count, nor does the big book o' broken magic.

2. Improved Familiar is stupid. Thank you.

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.

Tell me why I should give a damn about the halfling outrider, aglarondan griffonrider, shaaryan hunter, and dragonrider. And while you're at it, make up your mind: is a cohort a significant addition to the party's combat ability, or not?

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!

So perhaps this cohort is deserving of XP after all, hmm?

Has your already apparently-minimal proficiency with the english language failed you yet again?

No, Paxie, your ability to find a dictionary does not qualify you to post verbage without restraint.

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.

Direct benefits != no benefits at all. Or have you already forgotten

If the other players don't care for teamwork -- if as far as they're concerned, it's every PC for himself -- then they probably won't see anything useful in the feat.

Consider not playing arena games if you want to see what the world really is like.

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?

See above.

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 ... ?

That's a class benefit, already rolled up into the druid's XP. And indeed, an animal companion can be an obscene addition to a party's firepower, possibly deserving of XP on a "who contributes the most" basis. Try again.

So, are you done choking your straw man?

Not at all! In fact, I'm choking my strawman RIGHT NOW, IYKWIMAITYD.

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 ...

1. Learn to use Leadership.

2. Arena games will make you go blind. So stop it.

 

[Trainz]

Here's a new one for you Hong:

"What is WRONG with you and "Paxie" ?"

And use my full name this time.

Thank you.



Putting out fire with gasoline...

 

[hong]

Here's a new one for you Hong:

"What is WRONG with you and "Paxie" ?"

And use my full name this time.

Thank you.



Putting out fire with gasoline...

Happy?


Hong "and it should, of course, be 'Paxae'" Ooi

 

[Trainz]

Happy?


Hong "and it should, of course, be 'Paxae'" Ooi

*sigh*

Are you sure you're not Terry Austin in disguise ?

 

[hong]

*sigh*

Are you sure you're not Terry Austin in disguise ?

That's so sweet.

And anyway, Terry's a pussycat, even if he does like to borrow my nipple clamps.

 

[Trainz]

That's so sweet.

And anyway, Terry's a pussycat, even if he does like to borrow my nipple clamps.

bah


/msb

 

[hong]

bah


/msb

MSB is the lollypop guildmaster? This certainly puts a new spin on things.

 

[Trainz]

MSB is the lollypop guildmaster? This certainly puts a new spin on things.

Nah, I was just quoting him.

Enough thread-jacking. Don't you guys have a fire to put fuel on or something ?

 

[Liquidsabre]

*Takes thread off the barbie* Stick a fork in it, this one is done!