Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pax" data-source="post: 1467250" data-attributes="member: 6875">If it doesn't say that, then don't hold it up like it's a rules-based argument.  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!  I suggest you ensure your own TOTAL expertise with the language, before posting statements like that.  And "canon" itself comes out:  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.  Translation: Far be it from you, to back up your wild and unsupported claims and misrepresentations, with any actual references to the RAW.  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!  "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.  There's no straw man here, and besides, I'd much rather choke you; I'm sure that would be ever so pleasant!  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!  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!*  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".  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?  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!  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.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?  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 ...</blockquote>

Verification