Cohorts: NPC's? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cohorts: NPC's? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Watchdog_of_Hades
03-05-06, 01:30 PM One of my friends is hosting a campaign, and all the players in it have Leadership. The DM says that everyone except the players are NPC's and he controls them, both in battle and roleplaying. However, I have a problem with that, seeing as I like to roleplay. I realize that that's not exactly a good reason, but still; do you think that the players or the DM should control cohorts?
TheChilliGod
03-05-06, 01:49 PM Having the DM control the cohorts allows him to make suitable human responses to your actions, conversations and commands, so that way the game is more 'realistic' in that we aren't playing a PCPRG where one player plays all of the characters. (like in Baldur's Gate or TOEE) Most of the time, people don't have the same tactics and thoughts running through their minds, unless the team has been together for ages, and bonds of kinship etc.

On the other hand, having you control the cohorts gives you the power to have conversation topics go your way, like you're planning out your own story in the DM's story, and allows you to make decisions in combat that make it seem as though there is perfect team coordination. And it takes the weight off of the DM's shoulders.

I'm lucky enough that there is only one 'cohort' in my adventuring group (Not even a proper cohort, more of a requested NPC.) and the associated player and I have already agreed that the player will do the RP'ing (except when the 'cohort' knows something that the player doesn't, then I take over) and we share control of her during combat depending on how serious the combat is.

The same player, on the other hand, controls a cohort in his campaign that I play in, and one of the other players has a proper cohort (w/ leadership and all) that the DM controls completely during battle and when RP'ing, for reasons given above.

So, I'm on the fence about this issue, and if your DM wants to control all the cohorts fully, well then that's just going to be more weight on his shoulders, no skin off your nose.
Seeker95
03-05-06, 02:40 PM if your DM wants to control all the cohorts fully, well then that's just going to be more weight on his shoulders, no skin off your nose.Ditto.

I agree that all creatures/entities in the game are NPCs controlled by the DM -- including familairs, animal companions and cohorts. However, as DM, I do not want to have to extend myself in every encounter to playing the familiars, cohorts and companions any more than is absolutely necessary. So...

I let the players of the associated and relevant PCs run them until I see the player making decisions that I disagree with. And when I step in, I try to do so first with a simple "The cohort wouldn't do that" or "Your animal companion indicates she does not agree." But if I have to, I will assume control of the companion/familair/cohort completely.
Watchdog_of_Hades
03-05-06, 08:56 PM What if, in my opinion, I'm an awesome roleplayer and would be able to play my cohort as someone who is not a mental clone of my character?
TheChilliGod
03-05-06, 10:35 PM What if, in my opinion, I'm an awesome roleplayer and would be able to play my cohort as someone who is not a mental clone of my character? I would be hard-pressed to believe you.

That same player that I mentioned? He also made the same argument, before we agreed on what to do. He also said he's a more-than-capable roleplayer. He never said if he's played 2 guys in the same campaign before.
And so far, as he roleplays the 'cohort,' it has currently as much personality and feeling to it as a plank of wood that can cast magic missile.

I know I'm making this situation into an Everyman scenario, but unless you have actually played two characters successfully, and I have a second opinion as proof, then I won't believe you. But we'd still talk about partial control.

However, I am not your DM (and I know that for sure, I won't even allow Leadership IMC) and as such, you're just going to have to trust his methods and be happy in that it's less dice-rolling you have to do, less words you have to speak, and longer for you to live.
Seeker95
03-06-06, 01:09 PM What if, in my opinion, I'm an awesome roleplayer and would be able to play my cohort as someone who is not a mental clone of my character?If your opinion is actually manifested in reality, then you would encounter no DM-takeover or DM-warning in my game. If your opinion is as accurate as a lot of the self-assessment presentations on the Boards, you're likely to receive a number of DM-warnings, and the occasional DM-takeover.
InkBlot
03-06-06, 02:40 PM Ditto.

I agree that all creatures/entities in the game are NPCs controlled by the DM -- including familairs, animal companions and cohorts. However, as DM, I do not want to have to extend myself in every encounter to playing the familiars, cohorts and companions any more than is absolutely necessary. So...

I let the players of the associated and relevant PCs run them until I see the player making decisions that I disagree with. And when I step in, I try to do so first with a simple "The cohort wouldn't do that" or "Your animal companion indicates she does not agree." But if I have to, I will assume control of the companion/familair/cohort completely.
I agree for the most part. I disagree entirely on the issue of familiars. Familiars are so much a part of the PC that the familiar actually feels the PC's emotions and vice versa. It's completely reasonable that a familiar would always agree with, or at least go along with, whatever decisions the PC makes.
Findail
03-06-06, 02:45 PM In general, I think the player should run the cohort - most of the time (DM intervention may be required occasionally). I guess it depends on the players, but generally it seems rather hypocritical for the DM to complain that a player's second character will inevitably be a mindless clone whereas all of the DM's countless monsters and NPC's are unique individuals...
Licínio Miranda
03-06-06, 02:48 PM The DM Guide says that for all aspects, the cohort is a character played by the player, AND NOT THE DM.

P.S.: The cohort has a G.P. equipment value per level as a PC or a NPC???

Because, a 20th lvl cohort could have 760.000 g.p. if he is like a PC or only 200.000 g.p. if he is like a NPC.
Findail
03-06-06, 03:02 PM P.S.: The cohort has a G.P. equipment value per level as a PC or a NPC???

Because, a 20th lvl cohort could have 760.000 g.p. if he is like a PC or only 200.000 g.p. if he is like a NPC.
You mean, how much does he have when newly recruited? (Because afterwards, it depends on how the party splits its treasure: possibly "PC's pay for their own cohorts from their share", or "cohorts get a half-share plus whatever gifts the PC gives them").

I'm guessing NPC equipment on recruitment. After all, they're NPC's until then, and they're not supposed to come with "dowries" of cash.
Seeker95
03-06-06, 03:12 PM The DM Guide says that for all aspects, the cohort is a character played by the player, AND NOT THE DM.Got a link or reference?
Tyler Do'Urden
03-06-06, 03:29 PM It's completely reasonable that a familiar would always agree with, or at least go along with, whatever decisions the PC makes.
With the obvious exception of, "Hey you know what would be fun? If we made a hat from your skin. Wanna make a hat out of your skin, boy?"
The DM would be well within his rights to tell you, "...alright, your familiar gazes up at you and says, 'what the :censored: are you talking about?' "
"But my familiar doesn't speak Com-"
"Well he does now."
Bruunwald
03-06-06, 04:20 PM At the opening to the NPC section in the DMG, it specifically states that the DM controls everyone who is not the PCs. The chapter then goes on to outline all of those characters the DM controls:

Cohorts, allies, hirelings, villains, familiars, mounts, animal companions and your half-orc Thog's second-cousin Judy and her boyfriend Rob.

Now, some DMs don't know about this, or are very lax about it, while others care immensely. I happen to care immensely because when we were younger we had players in the game who sent their hirelings in to die in their place and generally used anybody who was not their main PC as meat shield. We're all grown up now, except for one guy, who would do that crap in a heartbeat, so much to his chagrin, I continue to run his animals, etc., for him.

On the other hand, I have on occasion handed over control of animals or summoned creatures during combat, when there were too many characters in general and I was getting bogged down with keeping track of all of them. I reserved the right (and exercised it on occasion) to take back control if and when I saw a situation that was not being played fairly or realistically, or by published rules.

For instance, an animal (including an animal companion) will not willingly go to where a wraith is. I had a player try to force his girlfriend's druid's cougar into such a place. An argument resulted and the guy tried to make his girlfriend play the cougar as if it were going in fearlessly to attack. I usurped control of the cougar. I mean, who is the DM here? If I made a decision, it is not the purview of the player to tell me something different is happening.

Anyway, so my two pennies: the DMG says your DM is right. But when you DM you can always do it differently.
Zherog
03-06-06, 04:31 PM Got a link or reference?

I'm going from another source that answered this very question on another message board; hopefully the source is as reliable as I think. ;) Try page 106 - I'm guessing of the DMG.
Seeker95
03-06-06, 04:47 PM Zherog, your memory is accurate. here is the sentence on page 106, under cohorts:
"A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under the player's control, one whose share of XP, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players' characters."

This statement has many elements making it a decidedly undecided issue.

1. It says on page 104 that cohorts do NOT take XP away from PCs.
2. It has the word "effectively"
3. Cohorts are included in the NPC chapter.
4. Page 103 indicates the DM is responsible for prortraying "everyone in the world who isn't a player character."

As it stands, none of this changes how I run things in my game. I like to avoid micromanagement when I can, and cohorts, familiars and animal companions fall into this category for me -- let the PC run them until they go outside what I consider appropriate behavior.
Licínio Miranda
03-06-06, 04:54 PM Zherog, your memory is accurate. here is the sentence on page 106, under cohorts:
"A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under the player's control, one whose share of XP, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players' characters."

This statement has many elements making it a decidedly undecided issue.

1. It says on page 104 that cohorts do NOT take XP away from PCs.
2. It has the word "effectively"
3. Cohorts are included in the NPC chapter.
4. Page 103 indicates the DM is responsible for prortraying "everyone in the world who isn't a player character."

As it stands, none of this changes how I run things in my game. I like to avoid micromanagement when I can, and cohorts, familiars and animal companions fall into this category for me -- let the PC run them until they go outside what I consider appropriate behavior.

Perfect!

So... the cohort is another PC.
Zherog
03-06-06, 05:19 PM Zherog, your memory is accurate.

To be fair, it wasn't my memory; I looked up the reference on another message board where I knew this discussion had already taken place. On that board, somebody who I trust greatly referenced page 106, but didn't quote it.

As it stands, none of this changes how I run things in my game. I like to avoid micromanagement when I can, and cohorts, familiars and animal companions fall into this category for me -- let the PC run them until they go outside what I consider appropriate behavior.

I feel the same way. I have enough things to do during the gaming session. With the exception of the occasional note that says, "Your cohort remembers this one time..." Or "your familiar feels uncomfortable around..." I give PCs great lattitude in running cohorts, animal companions, and familiars.

Ironically, the one PC I currently have with the Leadership feat, the DM runs the cohort, at my request. I wasn't sure I could roleplay two distinct personalities fairly. During intense combats, I'll take over the cohort to help the DM out - but otherwise she runs him.
Seeker95
03-06-06, 06:39 PM So... the cohort is another PC.You read the whole post, quoted the entire thing, and still managed to come away with nothing more than that? :rolleyes:
Watchdog_of_Hades
03-06-06, 09:40 PM Thanks for the input. I'm now confused about the conflicting signals coming from the DMG, but oh well. Thanks for the clearing up... or muddying... Whatever.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Watchdog_of_Hades 03-05-06, 01:30 PM	One of my friends is hosting a campaign, and all the players in it have Leadership. The DM says that everyone except the players are NPC's and he controls them, both in battle and roleplaying. However, I have a problem with that, seeing as I like to roleplay. I realize that that's not exactly a good reason, but still; do you think that the players or the DM should control cohorts?
TheChilliGod 03-05-06, 01:49 PM	Having the DM control the cohorts allows him to make suitable human responses to your actions, conversations and commands, so that way the game is more 'realistic' in that we aren't playing a PCPRG where one player plays all of the characters. (like in Baldur's Gate or TOEE) Most of the time, people don't have the same tactics and thoughts running through their minds, unless the team has been together for ages, and bonds of kinship etc. On the other hand, having you control the cohorts gives you the power to have conversation topics go your way, like you're planning out your own story in the DM's story, and allows you to make decisions in combat that make it seem as though there is perfect team coordination. And it takes the weight off of the DM's shoulders. I'm lucky enough that there is only one 'cohort' in my adventuring group (Not even a proper cohort, more of a requested NPC.) and the associated player and I have already agreed that the player will do the RP'ing (except when the 'cohort' knows something that the player doesn't, then I take over) and we share control of her during combat depending on how serious the combat is. The same player, on the other hand, controls a cohort in his campaign that I play in, and one of the other players has a proper cohort (w/ leadership and all) that the DM controls completely during battle and when RP'ing, for reasons given above. So, I'm on the fence about this issue, and if your DM wants to control all the cohorts fully, well then that's just going to be more weight on his shoulders, no skin off your nose.
Seeker95 03-05-06, 02:40 PM	if your DM wants to control all the cohorts fully, well then that's just going to be more weight on his shoulders, no skin off your nose.Ditto. I agree that all creatures/entities in the game are NPCs controlled by the DM -- including familairs, animal companions and cohorts. However, as DM, I do not want to have to extend myself in every encounter to playing the familiars, cohorts and companions any more than is absolutely necessary. So... I let the players of the associated and relevant PCs run them until I see the player making decisions that I disagree with. And when I step in, I try to do so first with a simple "The cohort wouldn't do that" or "Your animal companion indicates she does not agree." But if I have to, I will assume control of the companion/familair/cohort completely.
Watchdog_of_Hades 03-05-06, 08:56 PM	What if, in my opinion, I'm an awesome roleplayer and would be able to play my cohort as someone who is not a mental clone of my character?
TheChilliGod 03-05-06, 10:35 PM	What if, in my opinion, I'm an awesome roleplayer and would be able to play my cohort as someone who is not a mental clone of my character? I would be hard-pressed to believe you. That same player that I mentioned? He also made the same argument, before we agreed on what to do. He also said he's a more-than-capable roleplayer. He never said if he's played 2 guys in the same campaign before. And so far, as he roleplays the 'cohort,' it has currently as much personality and feeling to it as a plank of wood that can cast magic missile. I know I'm making this situation into an Everyman scenario, but unless you have actually played two characters successfully, and I have a second opinion as proof, then I won't believe you. But we'd still talk about partial control. However, I am not your DM (and I know that for sure, I won't even allow Leadership IMC) and as such, you're just going to have to trust his methods and be happy in that it's less dice-rolling you have to do, less words you have to speak, and longer for you to live.
Seeker95 03-06-06, 01:09 PM	What if, in my opinion, I'm an awesome roleplayer and would be able to play my cohort as someone who is not a mental clone of my character?If your opinion is actually manifested in reality, then you would encounter no DM-takeover or DM-warning in my game. If your opinion is as accurate as a lot of the self-assessment presentations on the Boards, you're likely to receive a number of DM-warnings, and the occasional DM-takeover.
InkBlot 03-06-06, 02:40 PM	Ditto. I agree that all creatures/entities in the game are NPCs controlled by the DM -- including familairs, animal companions and cohorts. However, as DM, I do not want to have to extend myself in every encounter to playing the familiars, cohorts and companions any more than is absolutely necessary. So... I let the players of the associated and relevant PCs run them until I see the player making decisions that I disagree with. And when I step in, I try to do so first with a simple "The cohort wouldn't do that" or "Your animal companion indicates she does not agree." But if I have to, I will assume control of the companion/familair/cohort completely. I agree for the most part. I disagree entirely on the issue of familiars. Familiars are so much a part of the PC that the familiar actually feels the PC's emotions and vice versa. It's completely reasonable that a familiar would always agree with, or at least go along with, whatever decisions the PC makes.
Findail 03-06-06, 02:45 PM	In general, I think the player should run the cohort - most of the time (DM intervention may be required occasionally). I guess it depends on the players, but generally it seems rather hypocritical for the DM to complain that a player's second character will inevitably be a mindless clone whereas all of the DM's countless monsters and NPC's are unique individuals...
Licínio Miranda 03-06-06, 02:48 PM	The DM Guide says that for all aspects, the cohort is a character played by the player, AND NOT THE DM. P.S.: The cohort has a G.P. equipment value per level as a PC or a NPC??? Because, a 20th lvl cohort could have 760.000 g.p. if he is like a PC or only 200.000 g.p. if he is like a NPC.
Findail 03-06-06, 03:02 PM	P.S.: The cohort has a G.P. equipment value per level as a PC or a NPC??? Because, a 20th lvl cohort could have 760.000 g.p. if he is like a PC or only 200.000 g.p. if he is like a NPC. You mean, how much does he have when newly recruited? (Because afterwards, it depends on how the party splits its treasure: possibly "PC's pay for their own cohorts from their share", or "cohorts get a half-share plus whatever gifts the PC gives them"). I'm guessing NPC equipment on recruitment. After all, they're NPC's until then, and they're not supposed to come with "dowries" of cash.
Seeker95 03-06-06, 03:12 PM	The DM Guide says that for all aspects, the cohort is a character played by the player, AND NOT THE DM.Got a link or reference?
Tyler Do'Urden 03-06-06, 03:29 PM	It's completely reasonable that a familiar would always agree with, or at least go along with, whatever decisions the PC makes. With the obvious exception of, "Hey you know what would be fun? If we made a hat from your skin. Wanna make a hat out of your skin, boy?" The DM would be well within his rights to tell you, "...alright, your familiar gazes up at you and says, 'what the :censored: are you talking about?' " "But my familiar doesn't speak Com-" "Well he does now."
Bruunwald 03-06-06, 04:20 PM	At the opening to the NPC section in the DMG, it specifically states that the DM controls everyone who is not the PCs. The chapter then goes on to outline all of those characters the DM controls: Cohorts, allies, hirelings, villains, familiars, mounts, animal companions and your half-orc Thog's second-cousin Judy and her boyfriend Rob. Now, some DMs don't know about this, or are very lax about it, while others care immensely. I happen to care immensely because when we were younger we had players in the game who sent their hirelings in to die in their place and generally used anybody who was not their main PC as meat shield. We're all grown up now, except for one guy, who would do that crap in a heartbeat, so much to his chagrin, I continue to run his animals, etc., for him. On the other hand, I have on occasion handed over control of animals or summoned creatures during combat, when there were too many characters in general and I was getting bogged down with keeping track of all of them. I reserved the right (and exercised it on occasion) to take back control if and when I saw a situation that was not being played fairly or realistically, or by published rules. For instance, an animal (including an animal companion) will not willingly go to where a wraith is. I had a player try to force his girlfriend's druid's cougar into such a place. An argument resulted and the guy tried to make his girlfriend play the cougar as if it were going in fearlessly to attack. I usurped control of the cougar. I mean, who is the DM here? If I made a decision, it is not the purview of the player to tell me something different is happening. Anyway, so my two pennies: the DMG says your DM is right. But when you DM you can always do it differently.
Zherog 03-06-06, 04:31 PM	Got a link or reference? I'm going from another source that answered this very question on another message board; hopefully the source is as reliable as I think. ;) Try page 106 - I'm guessing of the DMG.
Seeker95 03-06-06, 04:47 PM	Zherog, your memory is accurate. here is the sentence on page 106, under cohorts: "A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under the player's control, one whose share of XP, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players' characters." This statement has many elements making it a decidedly undecided issue. 1. It says on page 104 that cohorts do NOT take XP away from PCs. 2. It has the word "effectively" 3. Cohorts are included in the NPC chapter. 4. Page 103 indicates the DM is responsible for prortraying "everyone in the world who isn't a player character." As it stands, none of this changes how I run things in my game. I like to avoid micromanagement when I can, and cohorts, familiars and animal companions fall into this category for me -- let the PC run them until they go outside what I consider appropriate behavior.
Licínio Miranda 03-06-06, 04:54 PM	Zherog, your memory is accurate. here is the sentence on page 106, under cohorts: "A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under the player's control, one whose share of XP, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players' characters." This statement has many elements making it a decidedly undecided issue. 1. It says on page 104 that cohorts do NOT take XP away from PCs. 2. It has the word "effectively" 3. Cohorts are included in the NPC chapter. 4. Page 103 indicates the DM is responsible for prortraying "everyone in the world who isn't a player character." As it stands, none of this changes how I run things in my game. I like to avoid micromanagement when I can, and cohorts, familiars and animal companions fall into this category for me -- let the PC run them until they go outside what I consider appropriate behavior. Perfect! So... the cohort is another PC.
Zherog 03-06-06, 05:19 PM	Zherog, your memory is accurate. To be fair, it wasn't my memory; I looked up the reference on another message board where I knew this discussion had already taken place. On that board, somebody who I trust greatly referenced page 106, but didn't quote it. As it stands, none of this changes how I run things in my game. I like to avoid micromanagement when I can, and cohorts, familiars and animal companions fall into this category for me -- let the PC run them until they go outside what I consider appropriate behavior. I feel the same way. I have enough things to do during the gaming session. With the exception of the occasional note that says, "Your cohort remembers this one time..." Or "your familiar feels uncomfortable around..." I give PCs great lattitude in running cohorts, animal companions, and familiars. Ironically, the one PC I currently have with the Leadership feat, the DM runs the cohort, at my request. I wasn't sure I could roleplay two distinct personalities fairly. During intense combats, I'll take over the cohort to help the DM out - but otherwise she runs him.
Seeker95 03-06-06, 06:39 PM	So... the cohort is another PC.You read the whole post, quoted the entire thing, and still managed to come away with nothing more than that? :rolleyes:
Watchdog_of_Hades 03-06-06, 09:40 PM	Thanks for the input. I'm now confused about the conflicting signals coming from the DMG, but oh well. Thanks for the clearing up... or muddying... Whatever.