Death to All Cohorts!

[Khaladon]

I've never really liked the ability to have a cohort along. To me it basically seems like being able to get a gestalt character for the price of a little feat.

And if everyone in the party doesn't have a cohort, then it can easily unbalance the party.

I don't always mind, as some folk know how to use a cohort 'properly' (IMHO) as basically just a tag-along NPC that doesn't get much face-time but is there to help out in a real pinch. But it's those who use it to basically double up their character that can get to me.

I realize that MMV widely on this topic but that's why I made this thread, to hear what others think of the subject. I have no interest in arguing the matter, but if you feel strongly one way or the other about it, or have some solid 'proof' that I'm full of it, I'm welcome to hear it.

This is just a friendly forum for open discussion and debate on the topic, any who want to insult or argue can go somewhere else.

So whatcha think?

[Grifthin]

I dislike book keeping. I dislike both familiars and Cohorts equally

[Umael]

Hasn't come up in any of our games. Have to ask though...

What do you, as a GM, do if the cohort dies?

[PId6]

Leadership is broken broken broken broken. It's far better than just gestalting your character; it gives you a second one, which means extra actions and the ability to do crazy things with disposable minion. Pretty much in any game where Leadership is allowed, there is no (optimization-based) reason why anyone wouldn't want to take it (bookkeeping and desire not to break game can be factors though).

[Another_Poet]

Our group has a history of not taking Leadership and not employing tagalong NPCs of any kind.

However, that is currently changing. We have been down a player for 6 months or more in my IK campaign, with slim recruitment prospects. The players all love their current characters but really feel the need for an arcanist. One is taking Leadership to add the much-needed arcanist to the group.

I suspect they will use it as a party resource, giving the character little face time as you described but turning to them when their niche abilities are needed. I do agree that the presence of cohorts means extra bookkeeping and that is my primary concern, not overpowering one of the characters, because I feel good both about my players' common sense in using the cohort and in my DM skill in balancing things as needed.

Ultimately it depends on the will of the group. Each group has its own style and preferences. Having suicidally devoted cohorts who act as your combat double or your effective gestalt resource is fine if the group accepts that. If just one player has that mentality then you may need to talk to them or just employ houserules that limit such uses. For instance I would step in as a DM and have the cohort refuse to accept certain missions or tasks because they are too dangerous.

@Umael: I don't know why you would treat a dead cohort any differently than any other dead character. The Leadership feat includes rules for gathering new cohorts as well as the modifiers to your Leadership score from having a reputation of killing cohorts. The players can res the cohort if they want, paying out of their own pocket and accepting the drawbacks of res as with any other resurrection they seek. It's not the DMs issue to deal with. Moreover if the PCs are sending their cohorts into battle they should expect fatalities since the cohorts are by definition lower level than the PCs.

[Caliphbubba]

It's been banned in every game I've ran or played in, that to me says it all.

[Emmerask]

Leadership is broken broken broken broken. It's far better than just gestalting your character; it gives you a second one, which means extra actions and the ability to do crazy things with disposable minion. Pretty much in any game where Leadership is allowed, there is no (optimization-based) reason why anyone wouldn't want to take it (bookkeeping and desire not to break game can be factors though).

Well the cohort is an npc and therefore played by the dm and not the player While this diminishes the return a bit leadership or the cohort feats are still broken, I agree with that

[Khaladon]

Leadership is broken broken broken broken. It's far better than just gestalting your character; it gives you a second one, which means extra actions and the ability to do crazy things with disposable minion. Pretty much in any game where Leadership is allowed, there is no (optimization-based) reason why anyone wouldn't want to take it (bookkeeping and desire not to break game can be factors though).

I hear ya brother! Preach on! Word!

Hasn't come up in any of our games. Have to ask though...

What do you, as a GM, do if the cohort dies?

Um, Celebrate?


PS I'm thinking of starting another thread as
"Death to all those who overuse smilies!"
Whatcha think?

[Telonius]

Hasn't come up in any of our games. Have to ask though...

What do you, as a GM, do if the cohort dies?

"Ooh, and that drops him to negative 10. -2 to your leadership score for recruiting another cohort. Could you clear off the mini?"

Usually they'll pay for the Raise Dead/Resurrection/etc.

[2xMachina]

Not gestalt. Kind of better. Better Action Economy and HP. (Less synergy though)

[Khaladon]

Our group has a history of not taking Leadership and not employing tagalong NPCs of any kind.

However, that is currently changing. We have been down a player for 6 months or more in my IK campaign, with slim recruitment prospects. The players all love their current characters but really feel the need for an arcanist. One is taking Leadership to add the much-needed arcanist to the group.

I suspect they will use it as a party resource, giving the character little face time as you described but turning to them when their niche abilities are needed. I do agree that the presence of cohorts means extra bookkeeping and that is my primary concern, not overpowering one of the characters, because I feel good both about my players' common sense in using the cohort and in my DM skill in balancing things as needed.

Ultimately it depends on the will of the group. Each group has its own style and preferences. Having suicidally devoted cohorts who act as your combat double or your effective gestalt resource is fine if the group accepts that. If just one player has that mentality then you may need to talk to them or just employ houserules that limit such uses. For instance I would step in as a DM and have the cohort refuse to accept certain missions or tasks because they are too dangerous.

You see now the situation you described is one where I wouldn't mind a cohort at all.

But the bottom line is, to use your term, "player's common sense", having a good group of players that all possess this trait, as it seems yours do, is a goldmine, so kudos to you Another_Poet.

And secondly, I couldn't agree more, ultimately it is up to the DM as to how (or IF) cohorts run.



@Emmerask: Just to be clear, my dig re smilies was aimed at Me, not you. You ninja'd me and I wrote that comment before I ever saw your post. :)

[NEO|Phyte]

"Ooh, and that drops him to negative 10. -2 to your leadership score for recruiting another cohort. Could you clear off the mini?"

Usually they'll pay for the Raise Dead/Resurrection/etc.

Hey now, that -2 is only if you CAUSE the death.

[Khaladon]

Awesome Avatar NEO|Phyte! One of the most original I've seen.

Got anything cool for a Ranger(or Scout), Assassin, Shadow Lord type Character?

PS I'm allowed to thread-hack my own thread!

[Greenish]

"Ooh, and that drops him to negative 10. -2 to your leadership score for recruiting another cohort. Could you clear off the mini?"

Usually they'll pay for the Raise Dead/Resurrection/etc.

If you want to be a real ass: -2 to Leadership score can mean that the player can no longer have a cohort of that level. If they went the extra mile and got True Ress on the cohort, it might no longer be a valid cohort, and just walk away.

Hey now, that -2 is only if you CAUSE the death.

As in, taking the cohort with you to a dangerous adventure?

[AstralFire]

Leadership is banned. Roleplay that stuff out.

[Scorpina]

I generally find it a headache to have more characters than players in the PC party. It's just a hassle that isn't really worth it. I can just about handle familiars and animal companions, but that's about my limit on that.

I don't think I'd ever take Leadership. So much extra paper work...

[Umael]

I was thinking more along the lines of what you do when the player wants another cohort. Lower the level allowed? Deny the request?

Even worse thought - what about cohorts having cohorts?

[NEO|Phyte]

As in, taking the cohort with you to a dangerous adventure?

Using roundabout "causes" like that only gets you stabbed.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Hey now, that -2 is only if you CAUSE the death.

He followed you into battle and he died, thus you caused his death.

[Scorpina]

I think it'd need to be a more direct cause than that.

[2xMachina]

He was born, thus he'll die someday. So, his parents caused his death?

[NEO|Phyte]

He followed you into battle and he died, thus you caused his death.

I don't recall forcing my cohort to follow me into battle via Compulsion effects, how exactly is his death my fault?

[PId6]

He was born, thus he'll die someday. So, his parents caused his death?

Why wouldn't you use every excuse to blame your parents?

[Telonius]

I don't recall forcing my cohort to follow me into battle via Compulsion effects, how exactly is his death my fault?

If he was following your orders at the time, it's your responsibility. If he wasn't following your orders at the time, he wasn't a cohort.

[NEO|Phyte]

If he was following your orders at the time, it's your responsibility. If he wasn't following your orders at the time, he wasn't a cohort.

So he's only a cohort if I'm directly ordering him around? He slips in and out of cohortness as he completes an order and waits for the next one? Have we discovered quantum allies?

[Scorpina]

If he was following your orders at the time, it's your responsibility. If he wasn't following your orders at the time, he wasn't a cohort.

I think it's fairly tenous to claim that if he died following your orders, it's your responsibility. Yes, if you say 'Advance at a slow pace towards the red dragon's breath weapon', then you're likely responsible for his death (well, probably a bit less than the dragon, I'd argue), but if it's more of a case where he enters battle with a foe of comparible power to himself and comes up on the losing end, I'd argue that you're not the cause of his death - even if he was only fighting because you told him to.

[huttj509]

Look at it this way:

PC: LF Cohort, PST!
NPC1: Dude, don't go with him, I know he's impressive but he's gone through 5 cohorts in 3 months!
NPC2: Well, it might not be his fault, I mean, combat is inherently dangerous, ya know.
NPC1: Well, you can take the risk if ya like but most of us think he's cursed. Can I have your stuff?

Edit: I think an interpretation of how the event would spin NPC reaction is the best way to determine fault. If the cohort charged in ahead before the group was ready and the dragon ate him, that's not the leader's fault. If the cohort got killed by a trap since the leader didn't bring someone to keep an eye out for them, or was sent alone to forage for food and got eaten by squirrels, it would give an unfavorable impression of the leader when word got back.

[Starbuck_II]

This is just a friendly forum for open discussion and debate on the topic, any who want to insult or argue can go somewhere else.

So whatcha think?

I think it is fine. They only get NPC wealth and you have to pay them a 1/2 share.

If they die, revive them.

[ken-do-nim]

A cohort can't come at the cost of a feat. They are an NPC, with their own motives and actions. If you, the DM, decide that the cohort will eventually betray their master, that's a fine move plot-wise, but when it happens the player will whine that you've nerfed his build because he spent a precious feat on it. So, remove it from the feat chain.

[Khaladon]

Look at it this way:

PC: LF Cohort, PST!
NPC1: Dude, don't go with him, I know he's impressive but he's gone through 5 cohorts in 3 months!
NPC2: Well, it might not be his fault, I mean, combat is inherently dangerous, ya know.
NPC1: Well, you can take the risk if ya like but most of us think he's cursed. Can I have your stuff?

Edit: I think an interpretation of how the event would spin NPC reaction is the best way to determine fault. If the cohort charged in ahead before the group was ready and the dragon ate him, that's not the leader's fault. If the cohort got killed by a trap since the leader didn't bring someone to keep an eye out for them, or was sent alone to forage for food and got eaten by squirrels, it would give an unfavorable impression of the leader when word got back.

This makes sense, as the whole point of the penalty is how your last cohorts death will affect any potential new cohorts. Unless someone stabs someone else in the face, assigning direct responsibility for death can be murky. Perception of the event is what will count and that, of course, has to be up to the DM.