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

[irdeggman]

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)

DMG pg 106

A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under that player's control. . .

PHB pg 311

nonplayer character (NPC): A character controlled by the
Dungeon Master rather than by one of the other players in a game
session, as opposed to a player character.

 

[irdeggman]

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.

Except that "Follower" also has a specific meaning in D&D.

DMG pg 105

Followers are similar to cohorts, except they're generally low-level NPCs. Because they're generally five or more levels behind the character they follow, they're rarely effective in combat. . .

Followers don't earn experience and thus gain levels. However, when a character with the Leadership feat attains a new level, the player consults the table in the feat description to determine if she has acquired moore followers, some of which may be higher level than the existing followers.

 

[irdeggman]

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.

All of which is against the rules.

The DMG is pretty clear about only getting 1 cohort with the leadership feat, although there is no limit to the number of times that cohort can be replaced.

It is likewise clear on the level limit of the cohorts (at least 2 levels lower than the PC leader.

It is also clear on the treasure and xp awards that the cohorts gain.

DMG pg 104-105

to sum up since I don't want to go through and retype the quotes. . .

xp awards are equal to 1/2 that awarded to the leader

cohorts don't count as party members when determining xp awards for the party.

cohorts get a 1/2 share of the treasure and count as 1/2 party members when dividing the treasure. Usually - other deals can be reached.

Also due to things like what you encountered the DMG is very clear that this is an optional feat that should be disallwed if it is going to cause trouble with the players.

 

[irdeggman]

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.

This is what I do too.

I role-play the cohort but the PC controls his/her actions.

I find it more plausible then to allow the player to carry on in-character conversations with himself (PC to cohort and vice-versa).

 

[anest1s]

A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under that player's control. . .

Effectively...

 

[the Jester]

Leadership has the dubious honor of being the one feat in 3e that I eventually banned.

It is SO MUCH BETTER than any other single non-epic feat. A well-made support cohort 2 levels lower than my pc? Hell yeah! Oh, and an extra turn every round... further slowing (high-level) combat to a crawl... ugh.

That said, I always thought references to multiple cohorts were referring to "you lost one, now here's another to replace him" situations. I would absolutely NOT allow multiple cohorts without multiple Leadership feats.

SRSLY, imagine a summoning-mad druid with a summoning-mad cohort... suddenly one player has like eight turns a round. I'm walking to the store (four miles away) and back five times before it's my turn again. Now give that player multiple cohorts, and everyone else might as well just go home.

 

[FoxWander]

The DMG is pretty clear about only getting 1 cohort with the leadership feat, ...

Actually it seems to be pretty clear about just the opposite. There are three separate times in the text about cohorts and the Leadership feat where it explicitly spells out multiple cohorts for a single PC. Let me just copy that from my post on the last page.

1) The Benefits section of the feat (which actually defines what the feat does) says it "enables the character to attract loyal companions and devoted followers"- note the plural "companions" referring to the cohort part of the feat.

2) The Cohorts section on page 104 on discussing no limits on class, race, and gender for cohorts, also says "nor limits to the number of cohorts who can be employed by a character." Again- plural cohorts for a singular character.

3) The Attracting Cohorts section on page 106 talks about a singular character attracting multiple cohorts.


Many people say (something I thought as well) that Leadership only allows one cohort but I couldn't find anything that specifically limits it to just one. But there are several mentions allowing multiple cohorts- number 2 above (in the section about cohorts) is particularly clear. If there IS a specific limit of one in the rules, please point it out as that's the way I'd house rule anyway.

 

[Pergentile]

On the rare occasions I am a player, I assure the DM that only one character controlled by me will participate in combat. I generally use Leadership+Improved Cohort to remake my character at a higher ECL, or get out-of-combat support (Like a fleshgrafter).
Promising your DM that having a cohort will not cause any problems makes it hard for them to say no. If you break that promise though, look forward to finding a new group to play with.

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't mind cohorts if played correctly. They can help round out a party.

I do think that the leadership feat should have a DM approval statement in its description. Some players get bent out of shape when you say no to something in the core rules.

There are a lot of times a cohort is not a good idea. If the party is big adding another member can slow combat.

I think the DM should also have a veto of class and race of the cohorts.

Finally I think the rest of the party should have some choice in sharing treasure.

I have always seen the DM play the character interacting with the party it helps to give the cohort a personality and stops the PC from having to talk to himself.

Though the player runs the PC in combat so the DM can concentrate on the bad guys.

 

[irdeggman]

I don't mind cohorts if played correctly. They can help round out a party.

I do think that the leadership feat should have a DM approval statement in its description. Some players get bent out of shape when you say no to something in the core rules.

It does, DMG pg 104 under attracting cohorts

"You're free to disallow this feat if it would disrupt the campaign."

I think the DM should also have a veto of class and race of the cohorts.

He does - same section of the DMG.

"A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment. ... . .The DM determines the details of the cohort."