What is a cohort to you?

[muhcashin]

Cohort becoming full-fledged PCs

As an aside, cohorts are also great as guest-player-of-the-week PC's!

One good thing about well-developped cohorts is that when a new player joins the adventuring party or a PC dies and the player needs a new character, rather than screwing the campaign plot just to incorporate a new PC, a player can just take the cohort. Granted, some players will complain that cohorts are of a lower level than their previous character. I argue that if the dead character needed to be ressurected, he'd lose a level anyway (in my campaign characters are mid-level, so spells like true ressurection aren't accessible yet, they have to rely on raise dead

The perks of changing a well-developped cohort into a PC is that everyone already knows her and knows what to expect from her. Oftentimes, the cohorts have such interesting backgrounds and are admirably roleplayed by the DM, players are drawn to them and are generally glad to play them, especially if their own PC was rather dull to play.

BTW what does "BBEG" stand for?

Of course, the cohort must be well-developped, as much as the PCs are. Not just a torch bearer, like NiTessine mentionned.

 

[Chronosome]

Re: Cohort becoming full-fledged PCs

BTW what does "BBEG" stand for?

I'm guessing it's "Big Bad Evil Guy".

Thanks, everyone, for the input. It's interesting to see all the different opinions on this.

 

[Dextolen]

My players run their own cohorts, I have too much other stuff to worry about! If I got a sense that the cohort was being abused I'd step in, but that hasn't happened yet.

I'm not entirely sold on the way exp is delivered, I think they should get a cut of the group's exp.

 

[Creamsteak]

My image of an iconic cohort is someone who really, at the core, wants to emulate or directly aid a particular individual because of their charisma. So the two most obvious I see are the Cleric of Kord that wants to see the incredible fighter do his best, and the Paladins assistant Paladin asigned to him by the church...

But that's not the entirety of what I think of them... just a real generalization.

 

[Sanackranib]

to answer your questions:
1] yes, a cohort is loyal to the PC, weither they carry a torch, shield and extra weapons, are an accolyte or lab assistant, body guard etc. thier loyalty depends on alignment, fear/respect, and ghow they are treated, thier class and many other factors. for the most part they should be controled by the player but at all times subject to preset paramaters by the DM. and somtimes actually controled by the DM. they can and should be DM exploited as plot hooks just as the players are, and should have their own personality and manerisms. they should also have weaknesses. hey nobody said the cohort was perfect.

 

[Hackenslash]

Cohorts are a Blagg !!!

Hello All,

I posted a similar thread to this a couple of months ago and I still feel the same way about Cohorts. They are a hinderance to a well balanced campaign, in my opinion and are really not required. In my experience with several gaming groups, the Leadership Feat that gives you a whole PC at only a level or two below yours is way too overpowered for a feat. It also tends to get abused as a Player will deliberately choose the opposite character type so that he/she gets the most benefit from the cohort and gets most of the lime light at the gaming table. For instance a spell caster choosing a figher as a cohort, so when the game shifts towards a more melee type encounter they end up getting as equally involved in that as the other player warrior types whilst still getting to fling spells in the background. OR. if the character has to spend a while in game researching spells at a Library or academy, and possbily maybe a bit of roleplaying getting said spells etc.. then they can still get involved, via their cohorts, in the other encounter for the melee types who don't have to research spells or whatever. Sorry, but any ability that takes the lime light away from legitimate PC's is unfair in my book. However if the cohort was more of a back bencher and was basically played like any other hireling or follower and was really a support agent that obeyed the PC controling it and did not have a say in party decisions then fair enough but I would feel more comfortable without another high level NPC in the group. I don't think I will be allowing the Leadership feat but I will let the characters attract followers based on their Charisma and Class Level. A bit like they did in 1st edition. I beleave that if you have a cohort, follower etc...then the PC should expect the cohort to risk life and limb for the character and should not have a free will during game time as it just puts too much control over what is essentially a Follower, otherwise how did this cohort come to be attracted to the PC in the first place. I am sorry if my views on Cohorts seem a little extreme but I have had very bad experiences with them and they have ended up disrupting games and causing arguements if they are given the same consideration as the Player characters. We had one instance for example where the Cohort voted opposite to the Player Character during a party vote, what a nightmare that was and it really slowed down the gaming session. If I do allow followers I will mostly control their actions as an NPC but during encounters and combat I will let the PC control them. Well that was my 2 cents. Cheers All

 

[Chronosome]

Oh, another question: Have any of you DMs elected to remove Leadership from your games entirely?

 

[Macbeth]

Cohorts serve as privaleged NPCs: run by the DM, fairly loyal to the PCs, but with abilities that never even get close to the PCs power. A cohort can never outshine a PC, not because they are less powerful, but because they are played with the goal of augmenting the PCs abilities, not equaling the PCs.
But, most importantly, the Cohort is like a backup PC: if the player with the Leadership feat dies, he has the option to bring the Cohort to PC status.

 

[Hackenslash]

See my previous post about nightmare Cohorts...

Oh, another question: Have any of you DMs elected to remove Leadership from your games entirely?

in a word...YES !! the feat is way too powerfull to just be a feat. I would prefer it to go back to the way 1st edition used to allow a character with sufficient level and charisma to attract loyal followers but at sufficently lower levels of power.