D&D 5E Retainers/followers/companions: how?

[Asisreo]

If a player really wants a companion, they can have a companion that starts at 1st level and levels up as a PC. The xp is split as normal (I prefer xp over milestone) and the companion won't be 1st level until the PC is level 5, then they level up.

The PC runs the companion with all of their personality and combat effectiveness and keeps track of the Player Character Sheet assigned to the follower.

If that intimidates them, good. It intimidates me as a DM and I don't expect everyone's personal headaches being pushed to me.

 

[dave2008]

They were made official in the Essential Kit a few months back. Sadly they are much less interesting than previously seen on UA; they are basic statblocks for NPC that can be leveled instead of being level-able template you add to creatures.

OK, I didn't realize that. Can you just use the UA sidekick rules?

 

[Jester David]

Unless running a 1-on-1 game I'd avoid having more than 1-3 followers.
And even then, these should be mostly support and avoid combat. They're there for roleplaying more and less for stealing the spotlight.

The sidekick rules should be more than enough. It's hard to get simpler than that without just having them be a bodyless personality with no statistics.
Heck, you could just use the same statblock for all retainers with just a custom trait.

 

[Laurefindel]

Unless running a 1-on-1 game I'd avoid having more than 1-3 followers.
And even then, these should be mostly support and avoid combat. They're there for roleplaying more and less for stealing the spotlight.

The sidekick rules should be more than enough. It's hard to get simpler than that without just having them be a bodyless personality with no statistics.
Heck, you could just use the same statblock for all retainers with just a custom trait.

The drawback of UA sidekicks (or essential) is a bit like the animal companion in 3.x: since they have their own actions, players feel compelled to play them, which increases the length of a battle.

The advantage of @vincegetorix's approach is that unless a player spends their own bonus action to have the henchman take an action; the NPC can only move (providing flank for the rogue and limited terrain control), which goes a lot faster.

Basically, sidekicks "à la steel defender" mostly offer a wider range of bonus action options for PCs, which players can divvy up among themselves any way they like, and provide the party with a few more hp to take hits for the PCs. They become even more interesting when they have a quirk or two that allow the players to do something they wouldn't be able to do otherwise with their bonus action, or have a passive ability that players can use on each combat round.

The biggest drawback of such NPCs is that if players already have many good uses for their bonus action, the NPCs don't contribute much to combat. [edit] I say that but simply having a body moving around on the battlefield, threatening areas with attacks of opportunity, and taking hits for the PCs, can be a huge advantage.

 

[Jester David]

The advantage of @vincegetorix's approach is that unless a player spends their own bonus action to have the henchman take an action; the NPC can only move (providing flank for the rogue and limited terrain control), which goes a lot faster.

Basically, sidekicks "à la steel defender" mostly offer a wider range of bonus action options for PCs, which players can divvy up among themselves any way they like, and provide the party with a few more hp to take hits for the PCs. They become even more interesting when they have a quirk or two that allow the players to do something they wouldn't be able to do otherwise with their bonus action, or have a passive ability that players can use on each combat round.

Which is neat but can still lead to some option paralysis as players have a larger hand size of actions and questioning when they should "use" their followers. And I worry that it would really make them more feats than an NPC.

If your goal is less actions, you could just remove the action option from followers and make it a reaction. They can't attack on their turn, only make an opportunity attack. So they're a physical creature that interacts with the PCs but doesn't take a real turn.

While it might be more complicated there could be other benefits, like flanking or a small bonus to damage when within a certain range. Or being able to make an additional object interaction as they fetch items.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

So it seems like there's no easy solution. Either my players are the one running the NPC, facing them with an extra load of actions in combat, or I'm the one to run them, forcing me to run them while running the monsters and the scenario.

For now, I think I'll let them fade into the background, using them as quest givers, info-dumpers and downtime partners till I find a way that suits my table.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Honestly, I wouldn't use followers in combat with a seven player table. I have the followers stay to defend the homebased or just act like extra carrying space or whatever...

 

[Benjamin Olson]

In general, I divide NPCs with the party into 3 categories: followers, henchmen, and allies.

• Followers/Retainers - low CR NPCs, such as commoners, guards, bandits, etc. I reskin as needed to fit the role. They never level up, and once the party gets to level 5+, they become only useful in large numbers (I suggest using the mob rules). Most players will choose not to endanger them on adventures, but instead use them for support, such as taking care of horses, driving carts, and other things that make the PC's life easier.
• Henchmen - higher CR NPCs, such as bandit captains, berserkers, archers, veterans, knights, etc. They also don't level, but they'll stay relevant for much longer (we have a veteran in our Avernus campaign, and even at level 8 she's still useful).
• Allies - built as PCs, but never run by players. They level up as normal, and take a share of the XP. Due to how difficult these can be, I would limit them to only one, and try to keep them short term.

I like it. I disagree with henchmen in as much as if they are usefully in a combat with the party one share of the XP should go to them. I don't keep track of it and just let it be wasted for a while, but once the characters have leveled up once or twice with the henchperson in tow I graduate them to allies with class levels and start doing proper accounting.

I would also add that I did once have a Rogue NPC party member whom I eventually let the players run by table consensus once they had a handle on his personality and how he would operate in combat, and they were good about playing him in a way that made character sense and making decisions quickly. Of course his character had basically no resources to manage, which isn't really true of any other class or even all Rogue subclasses. And I'm guessing it would not be as smooth and non-metagamey a process with many groups.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The thing about Baldur's Gate is it was designed as a single player game. Your companions are substitute PCs.

Baldur's Gate caps the party size at six.

D&D becomes an unplayable mess with very large parties. If you have four or fewer players I would allow them one sidekick each, which they have direct control over. With five or more players I would not allow any combat capable sidekicks or followers. This is simply so the game is manageable and fun.

If you want retainers and followers, the stronghold in NWN2 is a better model. These NPCs stay at home and have out-of-combat functions. They do not go adventuring.

 

[Coroc]

So, how do you fine people handle retainers and followers? I'm running my table through the scenario of Baldur's Gate (the video game) and I love to use the companions of the game and allow them to be recruit-able by the PC.

I dont want to hand my players a full stat block, because if they are too complex, they just wont use them.
I've tried some version I found in 3pp and official material, but I find them lacking or difficult to handle.

Stronghold and Followers (3pp): the retainers are easy to run, they are quite streamlined (3 types of AC, all attack rolled with +6, all trained skills with +5 etc), but they use a whole other system for health and level up.

Essential's Sidekick: I find them too restrictive if you have more than 2 or 3 followers.

MM's NPC stablocks: A little too complex for my players, must be updated at each level if you want to remain worthwhile.

What do you people use for those companions?

Many methods for that - full fledged NPCs with stats spell list etc., or simplify them a bit, build them more like monsters. For you as the DM there are some very nice feats you get out of providing henchmen:
They can give in game suggestions if the party is stuck: e.g. how to bypass some obstacle, what important NPC to seek out next etc. But the best use of them all is instant canon fodder.
If need and mood is right you can kill them off in most gruesome ways - like flies, if there are many of them - to tighten the plot and to have the PCs getting personal (in and out game) motivations because maybe they started to like a certain PC.
You can also use them as deus ex machine in an absolute emergency, but I recommend to do so only in most dire circumstances, like imminent TPK. one or even two party members needing a proper raise dead somehow is not dire enough imho.