Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 1467554" data-attributes="member: 537">Which part of "you don't know how to use Leadership" constitutes a rules-based argument, Paxie?  The use of italics is not a substitute for clear thinking.  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   Your ability to distinguish between direct and indirect is... interesting.  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.  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?  This ability of yours to digress meaninglessly is truly fascinating. I conjecture it is related to the use of boldface.  Lorem ipsum dolor, etcetera.  Is this relevant to anything, or are you just glad to see me?   Or perhaps I should just post everything in boldface.  Woo, Pax can look up a dictionary.  While you're at it, look up "euphemism" and "metaphor".  No, Paxie, despite your unparalleled ability to digress, this argument has nothing to do with the RAW. Try again.   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?  Did you get that out of your dictionary as well?  Damn, Paxie's head is explodiating already. That was fast.  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.  So?  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!  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.  Why do you think these are mutually exclusive?   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.  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.  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?  So perhaps this cohort is deserving of XP after all, hmm?   No, Paxie, your ability to find a dictionary does not qualify you to post verbage without restraint.  Direct benefits != no benefits at all. Or have you already forgotten  Consider not playing arena games if you want to see what the world really is like.  See above.  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.  Not at all! In fact, I'm choking my strawman RIGHT NOW, IYKWIMAITYD.  1. Learn to use Leadership. 2. Arena games will make you go blind. So stop it.</blockquote>

Verification