Henches, Cohorts, and Donkeyhorses in 5e

[Lanefan]

One thing I think has been sadly left behind as the edition numbers have climbed - and not even mentioned here yet, unless I missed something - is the idea that the actual PC adventurers are not necessarily the whole adventuring party.

0-1-2e had Henches - associate adventurers whose duties ranged anywhere from baggage carrier and crossbow prop to adventurer-in-training to actual filler of a minor party role e.g. the 85 h.p. Fighter hires a hench Cleric whose sole job is to patch her up between battles. To some extent this reflected real-life adventuring: sure Hillary was the first to climb Everest but he doesn't get there without a team of associate climbers and Sherpa guides/porters.

0-1-2e also assumed pack animals were available (and thus used) to carry stuff; leading to the legendary donkeyhorse.

3e had the cohort, but only for those who took Leadership as a feat. Not a bad idea except that it doesn't take much for the cohort to catch or - in cases of bad PC luck - even surpass the level of her "boss"; which seems a bit odd. I'm not sure if 3e still kept henches as well; the version I played had 'em but they may have been houseruled in.

4e seems to have done away with "extras" in the party completely, at least from what I've seen...someone can and will correct me here if I'm wrong.

Should these return for 5e? I say yes, henches should be among the most basic of options (if not right in core) with guidelines for how to play them, pay them, etc.; with 3e-style cohorts being a more esoteric option except replace the feat requirement with a need for a decent (say, 14+) Charisma.

As for pack animals - at the very least put them in the basic equipment list and give some indication of their payload; those who want to use them can figure it out from there.

Thoughts, all?

Lanefan

 

[Zireael]

As for pack animals - at the very least put them in the basic equipment list and give some indication of their payload; those who want to use them can figure it out from there.

Pack animals were presented in this way in 3e.

 

[trancejeremy]

One thing I think has been sadly left behind as the edition numbers have climbed - and not even mentioned here yet, unless I missed something - is the idea that the actual PC adventurers are not necessarily the whole adventuring party.

I think partly that's because characters have grown more complex and more capable. There's more bookkeeping involved and less need for them.

I also think the scope or style of the game has changed. Originally D&D was sort of a sandbox (in MMORPG terms) - players explored dungeons, but generally there wasn't a story or plot or anything, except that which they made themselves.

You also have things like rotating or co DMs all using the same setting, with players coming and going - like you might have 2-3 DMs and 10-12 players (and often people would have more than one character).

Games have gotten more personal and more pre-planned story focused, like a Themepark MMORPG, which I think means more emphasis on a single character. At least if not in actual games, in printed materials.

But yes, I think that's one of the big answers to the "problem" that "Hey, my fighter only rolls for an attack and then rolls damage" as opposed to all the powers later ones have.

Maybe, but your henchmen would also do other stuff. So it evens out.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

3E had the whole shebang for the price of a feat, and boy was it powerful if you let it. Also time consuming.

Self restraint was the key to an enjoyable experience.

My paladin had his necromancer older sister follow him around and craft the odd magic item. The keep was populated by a militia of volunteers and allied Gnomes.

It was pretty fun, although they were largely a background feature without a formal system of play, or even role.

I think if I was going to do it again, i.e. 5E, I'd like the followers game to be a simple rule-set which would exist as another driving force for adventure. I don't really want direct mechanical benefit to my character, but it's a way to carve out in-game influence.

The rule set should point towards the iconic set-up:
- Hero becomes a leader, gets a core of followers
- Hero claims frontier land
- Clears land of monsters
- Build fort
- More followers arrive
- Settlers move in
- Hero claims more frontier land
...
- Monster invasion!

 

[Hassassin]

I would also like to see simple rules for handling these, especially the need for pack horses. For example, a table to cross reference the number of riders and the number of additional pack horses to determine how long the food and equipment they carry lasts.

Something where I could look up five PC's with eight horses (five riding, three pack) and arrive at: can carry equipment and food for two weeks, cost 4gp/day to replenish.

Trying to decipher these things from the 3e rules is way too involved. It doesn't have to be exact, just good enough.

 

[Number48]

I would also like to see simple rules for handling these, especially the need for pack horses. For example, a table to cross reference the number of riders and the number of additional pack horses to determine how long the food and equipment they carry lasts.

Something where I could look up five PC's with eight horses (five riding, three pack) and arrive at: can carry equipment and food for two weeks, cost 4gp/day to replenish.

Trying to decipher these things from the 3e rules is way too involved. It doesn't have to be exact, just good enough.

I like the idea of camp followers, who set up a nice camp about a mile from the adventure site for safety's sake. They don't even have to be wanted by the PCs, but just a function of people desperate to be the first on-hand when the incredibly rich adventurers are looking for a place to hole up and get some food.

What you're talking about is a bunch of little fiddly bits to track that get in the way of the story. I have no problem telling the players that, without extensive magic, there is no way to reach point B without X supplies. I would never make them track it all day by day. I might have something unfortunate happen, if it made for a better story, but that's another thing entirely.

 

[Hassassin]

What you're talking about is a bunch of little fiddly bits to track that get in the way of the story. I have no problem telling the players that, without extensive magic, there is no way to reach point B without X supplies. I would never make them track it all day by day. I might have something unfortunate happen, if it made for a better story, but that's another thing entirely.

Same here. I want to have numbers available so that I can easily say: Ok, you can carry enough stuff for a week's worth of travel - if you want to explore the wilderness twice that far, you need to buy two pack horses. I don't want to use the actual fiddly bits, much less make the players do that.

 

[Number48]

Something like this:

Characters on foot can travel 5 days without going to town, add +1 per hunter and +1 for some magical resource. Characters on horseback can travel for 12 days without going to town, +1 per hunter, +1 per magical resource, +5 per pack animal, +10 per horse and cart.

I don't know if those are the numbers, just an example off the top of my head. Then you have a simple system if you want it, and are still free to ignore it and just assume the characters will always find a way to eat.

 

[MortonStromgal]

Fighter types should get an army
Cleric types should get a congregation
Theif types should get a gang
Wizard types should get an aprentice

 

[Ferghis]

I'd actually make a "social" expansion to D&DNext, something like this: Traits (4E) - Hastur