Pax said:
Actually, every time I've designed a cohort, it has measurably and significantly improved the character it was designed for
Are you arguing with yourself again, Paxie? That, too, will make you go blind, you know.
- and thus, been of indirect benefit to the party, as I was then able to shoulder my share of the danger with that much greater confidence and ability.
I am trying, and failing, to find the point of this paragraph. Do you think that having a cohort be the party medic somehow rules out being able to shoulder your share of the danger with greater confidence and ability? Do you think that having a utility mage cohort means the same thing?
And further, per the rules, I obviously know how to use Leadership better than you do.
Ah, this must be a new meaning of "obviously" that I wasn't previously aware of,
boldface notwithstanding.
So, again: do you have a rules-based argument to support your "cohorts should only be party medics" argument ... ?
You're arguing with yourself again, Paxie. But for your edification, I will elaborate. And I know you're reading this, ignore list or no ignore list.
The job of a cohort is to supplement a character's abilities in a party. Typically, this involves providing extra skills or powers, including tactical options, that the character can exploit. The job of a cohort does not, however, include any requirement that the cohort must be able to compete for spotlight time with the PCs in the group. In fact, since the cohort is an NPC, competing for spotlight time is often actively discouraged. A character who brings with him the combination of extra skills + no spotlight time is usually referred to in the shorthand as "supporting cast".
None of this is rules-based, despite your desperate attempts to erect a strawman. It has all to do with understanding what D&D is about, and what Leadership brings to a party. You are, of course, free to go outside these guidelines. You can build yourself a barbarian cohort who charges into battle every time, and gets himself killed. You can build yourself a sorcerer cohort who keeps trying to outdo the PC sorc, fails repeatedly, and gets everyone annoyed with you. All you prove is your silliness, but don't let that stop you.
Childish attacks on another's posting style is not a substitute for native intelligence.
I never claimed it was, Paxie. Try again.
Though you're making a good effort to disprove that ...
Whatever you say.
And your inability to distinguish between the two is apalling.
I can distinguish between the two quite well, thank you. I do not, however, consider the difference particularly relevant in the context of this discussion; possibly this is because I value teamwork, and you do not. Not to mention that your
inability to
spell appalling is
itself appalling.
Yes, actually, you do have to work to get a cohort - there're prerequisites, not the least of which is being 6th level;
A level prerequisite is a Clayton's prerequisite. It provides no significant barrier to entry; all it does is delay taking the feat. This is a barrier only insofar as time has value; if you create a character starting at 6th or higher level (as will usually happen at least once in any long-running campaign), it's not a barrier at all.
it takes a whole lot more work to get to 6th level, than it shoudl take to get a basic +1 sword.
And, of course, this is a completely relevant argument because a cohort is no better than a +1 sword. In Paxie's view anyway.
I repeat: you have no idea how to use Leadership.
And unlike the unthinking lump of metal-and-magic that a magic sword is, you have to work to keep the cohort, too! The loyalty a cohort feels to the PC is not unthinking; s/he cannot be continually abused, misused, and ill-treated ... or they'll leave.
If you think that not abusing, misusing or ill-treating a party member (and that's what a cohort is, regardless of their status as an NPC) somehow constitutes "work", then clearly you have no idea what D&D is about. Perhaps you should stick to arena games after all.
No, you have it wrong. By 3.5 rules, individual awards are the rule of the day.
And what is a cohort, but an individual?
Only if you think the Paladin's Mount should get a similar share of the XP.
Perhaps it should too, given how much mileage a well-played mount can provide. A lot of D&D's rules for obtaining sidekicks overlap to unnecessary degrees.
Consider not assuming that arena games are all I play or GM. Much though you would like to think otherwise ... you are not omniscient.
Sure, sure, that's what they all say.
Oh, and you might want to avoid confusing games with the real world ...
I could never do that, considering that
boldface and
italics are not part of the real world.
So, in other words, because the animal companion is earned with levels, it doesn't need to get a share of XP? Well ... leadership is earned with levels ... that's why it costs a FEAT to pick it up!
Considering what benefits you can get from that feat, and what benefits everyone else can get, it's a bargain.
... and with that, back in the [IGNORE] list with you.
Until the next time, anyway.
Shame on me for thinking you'd ever grow up!
No, Paxie, this is not going to get you into my sig.
) 
