So, in 3.5e rule, once a cohort lost a level, never catches up?

[mvincent]

It is really misleading to say a PC will "catch up" to other characters if he is lower level. There will always be an xp difference - they may be the same level - but they will be at vastly different ends of that level.

That is actually not a truism.

after several combat-heavy sessions and one big final showdown session with several big battles, she actually ended up having more XP total than other PCs. That happens.

I've seen this happen also. With strategic use of XP (i.e. routinely staying just below the leveling threshold) one can even cause this to happen fairly often.

 

[Jack Simth]

Ah. That sounds simple enough and may work unless a DM just hand the character sheet to a player and let him use that NPC as a XP battery or something. And I have no will to let a player "use" one's cohort in such a way.

At best, with my house-rule, the PC having the cohort craft stuff / use XP burning spells, it still costs the PC the XP, as that's where it comes from when the cohort crafts. The resource is still drained from the PC. It's when the DM has the cohort crafts stuff / use XP burning spells, the XP isn't burned... but then, the PC had no choice in the matter of the crafting/casting, so it's fair not to penalize the player for it.

I may actually hand the character sheet to a player and let her control the maneuver of the cohort in combats. But I still treat the cohort as a NPC.

Reasonable enough - it is still an NPC, after all, but at the same time, it's an NPC that's taking orders from, and devising strategies with, the PC.

Excellent. I agree completely.

Thanks.

 

[irdeggman]

That is no true. For example, a 10th-level character needs 10,000 xp to become a 11th-level character. And a 11th-level character needs 11,000 xp to level up. Current level by 1,000 XPs. This is the formula.

A cohort gets his level/leader's level by the XPs the leader gets. So, when a 12th-level master gets 12,000 XPs (enough to advance in to a 13th-level character) throughout a certain period, his 10th-level cohort gets 10,000 XPs during that same period, which is enough to push him up to the next (11th) level.

Now, if the said cohort was somehow at lower level, say, 8th, he only gets 8/12 of the XPs his leader gets. So, throughout the above period, he will earn only 8,000 XP. Just enough to push him up to a 9th-level character. This continues. Once the cohort become certain levels behind the leader, unless the leader somehow lose a level or two, the cohort never catches up. The difference in levels between the leader and the cohort never decreases.

The bolded section is the entire point of the cohort system.

If a leader loses a level then his cohort will "stall" at his present level and will never get closer to the leader in levels. Note that this follows the pattern regardless of what happens to the leader or not. The system is designed for the cohort to remain at mostly a stationy difference in levels behind the leader.

 

[Shin Okada]

The bolded section is the entire point of the cohort system.

If a leader loses a level then his cohort will "stall" at his present level and will never get closer to the leader in levels. Note that this follows the pattern regardless of what happens to the leader or not. The system is designed for the cohort to remain at mostly a stationy difference in levels behind the leader.

Ah, that is not that the cohort "catches up to the leader". The opposite, the leader slowed down.

I am afraid of that you are not truly understanding the true intention of the first post.

The issue here is, once a cohort loses a level or two, he stays 3 or more levels behind the leader forever, unless the master also lose a level or spend much XP and slowed down in his advancement.

 

[irdeggman]

I am afraid of that you are not truly understanding the true intention of the first post.

The issue here is, once a cohort loses a level or two, he stays 3 or more levels behind the leader forever, unless the master also lose a level or spend much XP and slowed down in his advancement.

No - I actually see what you are saying here but disagree with it being a real "problem". I instead see it as a ramification of the "leader's" actions. A "leader" who uses his cohort as an xp sink for making magic items, IMO, doesn't deserve to be a "leader". A leader who doesn't feel the pain of having his cohort die, likewise doesn't deserve to be aleader.

I did try to provide some "justification" to use in this - pertaining to things like penalties to leadership score based on "death of a cohort" - but they were pretty much dismissed outright.

If all people are doing is trying to use the leadership feat as a means of "powering up" in order to gain another PC - then the entire concept of the feat is missing.

That is why the DMG has a warning to the DM about using the feat in a game in the first place.

If what is needed is a means to introduce more NPCs into a party - then take a different rout. Either DM run NPCs (i.e. friendlies) - run just like PCs or have players run additional PCs.

IMO either option is shaky at best. I have always found that when players run more than 1 PC their role-playing opportunities suffer greatly and if the adventure "requires" more party memebers than there are presently then the DM needs to some more homework in adjusting the CR of the encounters in the first place.

Leadership is a very significant feat (and issue) to introduce into a game. Not all games have a place for such a concept and that should be weighed in before allowing it in. It is an optional feat for a reason.

 

[Shin Okada]

When a player try to take a cohort in my playgroup, that player usually does not do that for his gain. It is usually done to complement the lacking ability in the party (say, no rogue) or to balance the party out (say, a party is very strong in offense but has only one healer). "unbalanced" party may be composed when a player or two come or leave a play group. That is what actually happening in my play group now. A member, who was playing a single-class Paladin left the group due to graduate from a university and went back to his home town. As his PC was not only the best tank in the party but a second-healer (don't underestimate lay on hands and paladin's spell list), now our party is very strong in offense but rather weak in defense and healing power.

So, we are using Leadership rules to either make a small party playable (actually, I say at least 5-men party is the minimum "balanced party" in 3.0e/3.5e, though the core book suggesting 4 as a default), or, to allow each players to play more variety of characters or simply what he/she want to play. And also for RP purpose (apprenticeship and such).

And there is another problem in current RAW. A PC can "fire" and "replace" his cohort without much problem if he has high enough charisma and reputation anyway. PC Sorcerers, Paladins and such are so charismatic that penalty caused by "cohort death" or others can be easily absorbed. And actually, a cohort who is too low in the level comparing to other members become simply a burden.

In my opinion, It is much better to have a way to let the same cohort catches up, than to let PCs replace his cohort because the cohort is now too weak comparing to the others and cannot adventure with PCs any more.

But anyway, through this thread we already know that by RAW, PCs can replace a cohort almost freely but there is no way to let the cohort catches up to the useful level. So, this should be a house rule area already.

 

[irdeggman]

But anyway, through this thread we already know that by RAW, PCs can replace a cohort almost freely but there is no way to let the cohort catches up to the useful level. So, this should be a house rule area already.

I'm not certain on this one.

The RAW says he can replace a cohort he "loses". I don't think it says he can "dismiss" one.

DMG pg 105

"If a leader loses a cohort or followers, he can generally replace them, according to his current Leadership score. It takes time (1d4 months) to recruit replacements. If the leader is to blame for the deaths of the cohort or followers, it takes extra time to replace them, up to a full year. Note that the leader also picks up a reputation of failure, which decrease his Leadership score."

This is differrent than a familiar which the RAW says can be "dismissed".

But maybe I've missed something here.

 

[Shin Okada]

I'm not certain on this one.

The RAW says he can replace a cohort he "loses". I don't think it says he can "dismiss" one.

DMG pg 105

"If a leader loses a cohort or followers, he can generally replace them, according to his current Leadership score. It takes time (1d4 months) to recruit replacements. If the leader is to blame for the deaths of the cohort or followers, it takes extra time to replace them, up to a full year. Note that the leader also picks up a reputation of failure, which decrease his Leadership score."

This is differrent than a familiar which the RAW says can be "dismissed".

But maybe I've missed something here.

“Lose" does not always mean death. Basically, nothing prevent a character from "firing" a cohort if he dare to take a bad reputation for mistreating or otherwise caprice.

And, it is even rather a "gentle" and "appropriate" act to say to not follow the PC when a cohort went behind many levels comparing to the adventuring party, because his life is always endangered if the cohort stays in the party and continue adventuring with them.

And also, it is likely that a cohort who went many levels behind the leader tend to die soon. Fireball or Blasphemy does not exclude the cohort.

Anyway, it takes several months to recruit a new cohort. So "freely" could be an exaggeration.

Maybe I would have rather say, "replacing is the only way to continue having a reasonable cohort, as the cohort never catches up in relative character level to his leader."

 

[mvincent]

A leader who doesn't feel the pain of having his cohort die, likewise doesn't deserve to be aleader.

(As a veteran platoon leader, your impassioned response seems a little silly to me, but) 'Role'playing aside:
PC's can die through no fault of the player, and cohorts especially are likely to die simply because they are near situations designed for higher level PC's. The balance system can be more touchy this way than people realize. Example: an 8th level party hit by cloud kill (i.e. a level appropriate challenge) might be fine, but their cohort is probably toast.

The issue is that the game mechanics encourage finding a new cohort rather than raising the old one.

I'm fairly certain the the original writers simply didn't consider that cohorts cannot make up levels like PC's can.

 

[irdeggman]

(As a veteran platoon leader, your impassioned response seems a little silly to me, but) 'Role'playing aside:
PC's can die through no fault of the player, and cohorts especially are likely to die simply because they are near situations designed for higher level PC's. The balance system can be more touchy this way than people realize. Example: an 8th level party hit by cloud kill (i.e. a level appropriate challenge) might be fine, but their cohort is probably toast.

True enough but the "leader" is always held accountable.

27 years as DoD employee in a large military town - so I know that is true.

And the leadership feat works from the perspective of the cohort (for leadership score):

"Several factors can affect a character's Leadership score, causing it to vary from the base score (character level + Cha modifier). A character's reputation (from the point of view of the cohort or follower he is trying to attract) raises or lowers his Leadership score.

The issue is that the game mechanics encourage finding a new cohort rather than raising the old one.

this is true - but again there is a high likelihood of a "hit" to leadership score based on "reputation".

I'm fairly certain the the original writers simply didn't consider that cohorts cannot make up levels like PC's can.

And this is likely to be true.