What's the difference between a 'hired' cohort and a cohort received from leadership?

[irdeggman]

Leadership - Cohort is a Player controlled Character
Anything else - Cohort is an NPC, and so is controlled by the DM.

2nd use of cohort implies that all of the rules laid out for cohorts apply. That is level, xp awards (both based on leader), share of treasure.


While I believe you are just using the generic cohort here and not the D&D specific one.

In D&D "cohort" has a specific meaning, like "fighter" does. In the generic a cohort can be of a broader sense, as can be a fighter but when used in teh context of D&D both words have specific meanings.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have always interpreted the cohort getting his share of his treasure from his leader's share not from the rest of the party.

Even if I am wrong by the RAW on this I would house rule it. It doesn't seem fair to make the rest of the party share their loot for a feat that another player took. Not unless they chose to.

 

[FoxWander]

I have always interpreted the cohort getting his share of his treasure from his leader's share not from the rest of the party.

Even if I am wrong by the RAW on this I would house rule it. It doesn't seem fair to make the rest of the party share their loot for a feat that another player took. Not unless they chose to.

Yes, but if the cohort was helpful in the party's overall success then you're effectively penalizing the character who took leadership for helping the party win. The "leader" has effectively added another contributing member to the party- and he paid a feat to do it. If that cohort is helpful at all to the party, it should get a cut of the party's rewards.

If all the cohort does is help that one character that house rule might be fair- but even then the cohort would be indirectly contributing to the party as a whole. For example, if a fighter with leadership has a healer cohort and that healer only uses his abilities on the fighter during a battle- the healer is still helping the whole party because he kept the fighter alive and fighting. A house rule like you suggest would only really be fair if the cohort was somehow completely un-useful to anyone else in the party but the one with the feat. I can't see too many cohorts being that overall useless.

 

[BriarMonkey]

I would definitely enforce the use of the terminology:

Cohort - Follower gained via the Leadership feat;
Hireling - Follower gained via the use of coin;

That way it is distinct and everyone at the table knows what the difference is.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I would definitely enforce the use of the terminology …

This.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yes, but if the cohort was helpful in the party's overall success then you're effectively penalizing the character who took leadership for helping the party win. The "leader" has effectively added another contributing member to the party- and he paid a feat to do it. If that cohort is helpful at all to the party, it should get a cut of the party's rewards.

If all the cohort does is help that one character that house rule might be fair- but even then the cohort would be indirectly contributing to the party as a whole. For example, if a fighter with leadership has a healer cohort and that healer only uses his abilities on the fighter during a battle- the healer is still helping the whole party because he kept the fighter alive and fighting. A house rule like you suggest would only really be fair if the cohort was somehow completely un-useful to anyone else in the party but the one with the feat. I can't see too many cohorts being that overall useless.

I did say it should be up to the party to have the choice if they want to share treasure. But to allow one player to force the rest of the party to give up something does not strike me as the fair way to go.

I have played in many a game with cohorts and usually we have freely chosen to share treasure.

Though in one game the wizard took two cohorts and they only helped him the cleric only healed him and protected him and the fighter was his sole protector. The cleric was willing to let a PC bleed out rather then heal him. Also since our DM made us share treasure the player got three shares and the cleric and fighter routinely gave it to the wizard.

I have seen it badly abused which is why I chose to deal with the feat differently. My way allows the party some say in it and encourages the player with the leadership feat to be a little more team orientated.

 

[FoxWander]

Though in one game the wizard took two cohorts and they only helped him the cleric only healed him and protected him and the fighter was his sole protector. The cleric was willing to let a PC bleed out rather then heal him. Also since our DM made us share treasure the player got three shares and the cleric and fighter routinely gave it to the wizard.

I have seen it badly abused which is why I chose to deal with the feat differently. My way allows the party some say in it and encourages the player with the leadership feat to be a little more team orientated.

Well that is just completely F-ed up! I think if I were in the game with that wizard, his cohorts would be killed without a trace while he slept.

But yes, I can see in those cases how sharing of party treasure would not be cool.

 

[anest1s]

Though in one game the wizard took two cohorts and they only helped him the cleric only healed him and protected him and the fighter was his sole protector. The cleric was willing to let a PC bleed out rather then heal him. Also since our DM made us share treasure the player got three shares and the cleric and fighter routinely gave it to the wizard.

Ok. So why didn't everyone get cohorts?
Or hire NPCs and have them ask for loot too.
Or change party.

Other than that,

[MENTION=6671368]Pergentile[/MENTION]

Leadership - Cohort is a Player controlled Character
Anything else - Cohort is an NPC, and so is controlled by the DM.

Is this a house rule, or I can find it somewhere? I was wondering that thing, but I didn't manage to find something suggesting it was this way, or that it wasn't.

 

[Elf Witch]

Ok. So why didn't everyone get cohorts?
Or hire NPCs and have them ask for loot too.
Or change party.

Since it requires a feat and the rest of the players were using their feats for other things they hadn't taken it. And before we got new feats the game ended.

You can hire NPCs but the DM plays those and the DM decides if they will share loot you give them.

In the end the game self destructed over the DM never standing up to the wizard's player and not allowing us to do so either.

 

[Pergentile]

Cohorts are NPC's. (Page 104 of the DMG)
The DM controls NPC's. (I have no idea where this is stated, but I guarantee its truth)

As far as Leadership goes, the Cohort is loyal to the PC beyond just money or convenience. The Cohort believes in the PC on a deep enough level that if the PC tells the Cohort to attack a goblin, it will attack that goblin, trusting that the PC won't lead him astray. This level of obedience is similar to Domination, and extremely inconvenient and inefficient for anyone but the PC themselves to roll-play, and so for practicality, the PC simply plays the Cohort as well as his own character. What is the point of having the Player tell the DM what to make the Cohort do each round, and add rolls that the DM has to make without it changing anything except taking longer?
It of course IS up to the DM though. It is not stated anywhere that the Cohort from Leadership must be played by the PC, but it is stated that the PC has a level of control over the Cohort as to be able to control mechanical aspects of the character (skills, combat, etc.).

I personally like to play the Cohorts of my players, as it gives the Cohort a personality that most players usually wouldn't give to it, while still letting the player decide when the Cohort makes skill checks, cast spells, etc.