Shadowdark Shadowdark Discussion Thread [+]

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, the base game specifically doesn't do hirelings and is balanced that way, for a bunch of reasons.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think there's a legit concern about adding more reliable equipment/encumbrance slots and torch-bearing hands to the party. So I guess I can understand why Kelsey wouldn't want to make it a squire, beyond deference to the old school precedent of Paladins getting a special horse rather than a squire in OD&D and AD&D.

I have not let my 4 player group recruit an ongoing torchbearer, but for the 3 player group I feel like it's reasonable since they're comparatively short on hands and equipment slots.

Keeping torchbearers alive in hostile environments, especially as the delta in survivability increases at higher levels, can make it a bit more complicated than "reliable equipment/encumbrance slots".

If you factor out the horse, and factor in that non-paladins can find magic weapons without requiring it to be a class ability, there's not much left of the paladin.

And then just the base requirement that the paladin depends on the same attributes as a fighter, but also needs Charisma...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think there's a legit concern about adding more reliable equipment/encumbrance slots and torch-bearing hands to the party. So I guess I can understand why Kelsey wouldn't want to make it a squire, beyond deference to the old school precedent of Paladins getting a special horse rather than a squire in OD&D and AD&D.

I have not let my 4 player group recruit an ongoing torchbearer, but for the 3 player group I feel like it's reasonable since they're comparatively short on hands and equipment slots.

I think hiring an NPC is better for the game than having it be a class ability.

It would be a pretty controversial move for a GM to make an NPC granted by a class ability not be perfectly loyal -- or, more likely, a quantum hireling who would pop into existence when needed and do what was needed, and no more.

In contrast, getting a hireling to carry a torch and tote more stuff in their backpack could mean bringing in a character who's a coward, a thief, a traitor, a religious zealot or more. In addition to the PCs having to shell out cash that could be used for equipment or carousing for them to be there, they're inherently unpredictable.

And yeah, the more capable the group of PCs, the more expensive (and more flaky) you can make that NPC, to make sure you're not just giving them an "I win" token.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If you factor out the horse, and factor in that non-paladins can find magic weapons without requiring it to be a class ability, there's not much left of the paladin.

My players will tell you that guaranteed magic weapons are a pretty big deal. Obviously, this varies by GM, but the paladin's floor is "I have at least one magic weapon" in groups that might never see another one.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think hiring an NPC is better for the game than having it be a class ability.

It would be a pretty controversial move for a GM to make an NPC granted by a class ability not be perfectly loyal -- or, more likely, a quantum hireling who would pop into existence when needed and do what was needed, and no more.

In contrast, getting a hireling to carry a torch and tote more stuff in their backpack could be a coward, a thief, a traitor, a religious zealot or more. In addition to the PCs having to shell out cash that could be used for equipment or carousing for them to be there, they're inherently unpredictable.

And yeah, the more capable the group of PCs, the more expensive (and more flaky) you can make that NPCs, to make sure you're not just giving them an "I win" token.

"Perfectly loyal" does not mean "infinitely brave", though.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

"Perfectly loyal" does not mean "infinitely brave", though.

You do what makes sense for your group, but I think Kelsey was correctly assuming that most class benefit NPCs are going to mostly behave the way the paladin player wants.

Look at any thread here on ENWorld about warlocks and their patrons to see how many players feel about the idea that something connected to their class would not be 100% under their control. (I am in Team The Patron Is Not Your Friend, for the record, but it's clear that's a minority position.)

 

[Mannahnin]

I think hiring an NPC is better for the game than having it be a class ability.

It would be a pretty controversial move for a GM to make an NPC granted by a class ability not be perfectly loyal -- or, more likely, a quantum hireling who would pop into existence when needed and do what was needed, and no more.

In contrast, getting a hireling to carry a torch and tote more stuff in their backpack could be a coward, a thief, a traitor, a religious zealot or more. In addition to the PCs having to shell out cash that could be used for equipment or carousing for them to be there, they're inherently unpredictable.

And yeah, the more capable the group of PCs, the more expensive (and more flaky) you can make that NPCs, to make sure you're not just giving them an "I win" token.

Yup.

While a loyal squire also might not be as reliably brave as a PC, there's still an implicit expectation that they'll be reliable most of the time and not be killed off as randomly or easily as a common NPC. I think there's also a likely expectation that a squire will advance some in skill/toughness as the PCs get to higher levels, rather than staying a flimsy peasant like a hired torchbearer generally is.

Another thought I had was just that the game is also designed specifically to make turns in combat go quickly (not giving PCs multiple attacks, for example), so giving a player an extra character with their own turn seems against that design priority. A horse doesn't usually raise this issue, as it's virtually never going to be acting on its own.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My players will tell you that guaranteed magic weapons are a pretty big deal. Obviously, this varies by GM, but the paladin's floor is "I have at least one magic weapon" in groups that might never see another one.

True, but that also goes both ways: in a game that rains magic items, the Paladin might actually be at a disadvantage.

Between the sword and the horse it's honestly kind of a weird class. The only part I really like is "Inspiring Presence". (While it was being designed I pretty much spammed requests for the Morale effect; I don't know if I actually get credit for that but I like to tell myself I do....)

 

[Fenris-77]

My players will tell you that guaranteed magic weapons are a pretty big deal. Obviously, this varies by GM, but the paladin's floor is "I have at least one magic weapon" in groups that might never see another one.

Plus nothing promises anyone a magical weapon they actually want to use. It might be magical maces all the way down.

 

[Reynard]

Plus nothing promises anyone a magical weapon they actually want to use. It might be magical maces all the way down.

Beggars can't be choosers.