Post/Author/DateTime	Post
balakus01 02-02-06, 02:55 PM	Having read the Cohort Advancement and Special Cohorts paragraph on page 41, I am confused why Cohorts have to lose gold if they earn more than their total gp value from table 4-23. If they earned it shouldn't they get to keep it. Cohorts have it bad already with the half gold for playing and level difference, isn't this a little over kill.
CaiasWard 02-02-06, 04:13 PM	Yeah, stripping down a cohort makes such characters a liability at tables. They get NPC gold as it is, recalculating their worth each time you level is frustrating and makes them less effective as time goes on. It also breaks continuity of the character, certainly far more than not being able to use craft skills to make alchemist fire. As someone who often slot 0s modules, having a cohort means the difference between a 4 person and a 6 person table. A reading of the LGCS seems to show that you only remove the gold above the NPC wealth and not the equipment, as in add up equipment and gold and then remove gold until you bottom out. Thus, your cohort can still keep his equipment but will have to get rid of gold. Some may not read it this way, but that's the interpretation I've seen based on how it is written. I understand cohorts don't replace players and aren't supposed to be as powerful. However, they are often the last recourse for many players that don't have access to a large pool of players and often taken to encourage roleplaying. This certainly has more impact on roleplaying that crafting skills (which have a system in place to use them).
Mattastrophic 02-02-06, 04:23 PM	Totally agree. Experience has shown that any mechanic that discourages the use of cohorts is unnecessary, as they are already weakened enough by their level limitations. Mechanics are already in place to make sure that cohorts do not replace players at the table, so it's unneccessary to limit their GP value. It is my belief that cohorts should be treated as equal to PCs. They should receive full XP and full GP, just like a PC. If the LGCS stops discouraging cohort use, then more PCs will take Leadership, and thus will lead to more full tables, which leads to stability among tables. Then, mods can be written with "Six PCs/cohorts" being more of a standard, instead of "I have to make this mod survivable by both a group of Four and a group of Six." Stability would be the result. And that's good. -Matt
Morgan the Bold 02-02-06, 04:43 PM	Totally agree. Experience has shown that any mechanic that discourages the use of cohorts is unnecessary, as they are already weakened enough by their level limitations. Mechanics are already in place to make sure that cohorts do not replace players at the table, so it's unneccessary to limit their GP value. It is my belief that cohorts should be treated as equal to PCs. They should receive full XP and full GP, just like a PC. If the LGCS stops discouraging cohort use, then more PCs will take Leadership, and thus will lead to more full tables, which leads to stability among tables. Then, mods can be written with "Six PCs/cohorts" being more of a standard, instead of "I have to make this mod survivable by both a group of Four and a group of Six." Stability would be the result. And that's good. -Matt What Matt said! A great post that should be given serious thought by the Circle!
Munkwunk 02-02-06, 05:04 PM	I totally agree with Matt here. Stability is a key issue in Living Greyhawk; I've experienced way too many close-calls because the mod just didn't seem to know what to throw at the players, so the ECLs were a bit wocky. If Cohorts could be used more as a tool to fill blank spaces at a table, we'd experience a lot more stability at APLs 6+, which is when these sorts of problems come in to play. Certainly be not discouraging the use of cohorts, we can help solve a few of those issues.