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

[irdeggman]

“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.

Lose does not mean dismiss (or fire). It has entirely different connotations associated with it.

As I pointed out a familar can be replaced when it dies or is dismissed, so too can an animal companion. Both specifically state "dismissed" under the section for replacing. It is important to note that that word does not appear under replacing cohorts.

It does state that a mistreated cohort will leave.

"Mistreated cohorts become disloyal and eventually leave or even seek revenge against their employers. Loyal cohorts become trusted friends and long-time helpers."

Cohorts could also leave if there is a change of alignment that puts them in an opposition alignment to their leader. This is different than having a "different" alignment (there is a leadership score penalty for this one while it is flat out denied to have a cohort with an alignment in opposition).

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."

And this is true when a cohort dies.

 

[mvincent]

the "leader" is always held accountable.

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

We are talking about D&D, a game that doesn't simulate reality, but is instead designed around the concept of constantly killing things and taking their stuff... and occasionally (but temporarily) dying yourself.

The mechanic in question (i.e. permanent level retarding) is a glitch, not a tool designed to teach accountability and loss. As mentioned, your more impassioned responses seem... odd.

 

[irdeggman]

We are talking about D&D, a game that doesn't simulate reality, but is instead designed around the concept of constantly killing things and taking their stuff... and occasionally (but temporarily) dying yourself.

Then why bring up a real -world issue?

The mechanic in question (i.e. permanent level retarding) is a glitch, not a tool designed to teach accountability and loss. As mentioned, your more impassioned responses seem... odd.

Quirky and seemingly flawed yes. But there is an inherent consistency with its approach.

See my quotes on leadership score and reputation as it relates to the cohort (as in the one being acquired).

A Leader is penalized for seeming to fail. If his cohort dies, whether or not he was responsible, the word will get out and thus his reputation will be affected.

The same is true if he has great renown (again this is merely reputation). He gets a bonus.

All of the modifiers sure appear to be tied into (or at least can readily be so) a role-playing issue.

 

[mvincent]

Then why bring up a real -world issue?

I didn't think I was - my intent was the opposite. I possibly misread emotion into your earlier post, when you might've possibly been still talking about the rules. In context, my post was intended more to convey "even as a former platoon leader, I think putting any emotion into this is silly".

Objectively though, I don't disagree with your statements. Viewing the glitch as "them's the rules... I'm not changing them to allow you to play more carelessly as a leader" seems a perfectly fair stance.

 

[Shin Okada]

Lose does not mean dismiss (or fire). It has entirely different connotations associated with it.

As I pointed out a familar can be replaced when it dies or is dismissed, so too can an animal companion. Both specifically state "dismissed" under the section for replacing. It is important to note that that word does not appear under replacing cohorts.

I simply disagree with you at this point. "lose" is broader concept than "dismmising". And a word is used for certain (completely different) rules does not define what can be included in "lose" in the cohort rule.

Both familiar and animal companions are the result of magical or supernatural bond in nature. Cohorts are not.

 

[Shin Okada]

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

Me too.

 

[irdeggman]

I simply disagree with you at this point. "lose" is broader concept than "dismmising". And a word is used for certain (completely different) rules does not define what can be included in "lose" in the cohort rule.

I think you are confusing "lose" and "lost".

Lose is based on an uncontrolled event. It is the manner that something happens.

Lost is merely a condition. As in something is lost, how it got to be in that condition is irrelevent.

So a dismissed cohort can be considered a "lost" cohort.

But the text in the rules is very specific on "if a leader loses a cohort".

lose luz - Show Spelled Pronunciation[looz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, lost, los•ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it.
2. to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa.
3. to suffer the deprivation of: to lose one's job; to lose one's life.
4. to be bereaved of by death: to lose a sister.
5. to fail to keep, preserve, or maintain: to lose one's balance; to lose one's figure.
6. (of a clock or watch) to run slower by: The watch loses three minutes a day.
7. to give up; forfeit the possession of: to lose a fortune at the gaming table.
8. to get rid of: to lose one's fear of the dark; to lose weight.
9. to bring to destruction or ruin (usually used passively): Ship and crew were lost.

There are more definitions but the ones that are applicable all rely on "inadvertent" or uncontrolled events (accident, theft, etc.)

lost lɔst, lɒst - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lawst, lost] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. no longer possessed or retained: lost friends.

dis•miss dɪsˈmɪs - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-mis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to direct (an assembly of persons) to disperse or go: I dismissed the class early.
2. to bid or allow (a person) to go; give permission or a request to depart.
3. to discharge or remove, as from office or service: to dismiss an employee.
4. to discard or reject: to dismiss a suitor.
5. to put off or away, esp. from consideration; put aside; reject: She dismissed the story as mere rumor.
6. to have done with (a subject) after summary treatment: After a perfunctory discussion, he dismissed the idea.
7. Law. to put out of court, as a complaint or appeal.

Search for dismissed turns up:

dis•miss (dĭs-mĭs') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. dis•missed, dis•miss•ing, dis•miss•es

1. To end the employment or service of; discharge.
2. To direct or allow to leave: dismissed troops after the inspection; dismissed the student after reprimanding him.
3.
a. To stop considering; rid one's mind of; dispel: dismissed all thoughts of running for office.
b. To refuse to accept or recognize; reject: dismissed the claim as highly improbable.
c. To eject (a player or coach) for the remainder of a game.
d. To put out (a batter) in cricket.
4. Law To put (a claim or action) out of court without further hearing.
5. Sports
a. To eject (a player or coach) for the remainder of a game.
b. To put out (a batter

 

[Shin Okada]

I think you are confusing "lose" and "lost".

That sounds simply a silly argument to me.

One can voluntary lose something, or one may lose something as a consequence of one's act.

 

[irdeggman]

That sounds simply a silly argument to me.

One can voluntary lose something, or one may lose something as a consequence of one's act.

Question - and no offense is intended it just helps give a frame of reference on language usage.

Is English (US) your native language?

It is hard to tell with such an international posting group and there are tremendous nuances in the language that often gets in the way of interpretation.

 

[Shin Okada]

Question - and no offense is intended it just helps give a frame of reference on language usage.

Is English (US) your native language?

It is hard to tell with such an international posting group and there are tremendous nuances in the language that often gets in the way of interpretation.

No. But I asked about this to my friends who are native speakers of English and they said in tihs case your argument is wrong.

Because those dictionary definitions and examples are not covering actual use of the word "lose" in dally conversation or in writings.