Henches, Cohorts, and Donkeyhorses in 5e

[kitsune9]

I'm a big fan of "full" adventuring companies. I allow my players to get cohorts, bring their followers, hire mercenaries, and have support characters (i.e. teamsters, pack handlers, light bearers, and porters). A large group can easily be five main PC's, a party member NPC, and enough other characters to make the entire adventuring company number around 10-20 characters.

I always liked reading about Gary Gygax's and some of the other old hands who talked about their large adventuring groups. So in my campaigns, I allow the players to recreate that in our Pathfinder campaign.

 

[Stormonu]

Our last 3E game was a pirate campaign, and by 6th level, the group had used the leadership feat to represent their crew.

By the time the game ended, the party had a small armada, with three ships captained by PCs with the leadership feat. And a druid... There were well over 55 NPCs, not including cohorts.

We had a lot of fun with that game.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I think that armies, fortifications, etc. should be campaign options - if you are doing something akin to Birthright or Kingmaker then go for it! If you are doing something more urban or dungeon crawl oriented, then don't make having an army an option.

But do make it a campaign option! Sometimes the game is about the last argument of kings.

The Auld Grump

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'm another one who likes the idea of the PCs have a group of support characters following them around to help them out in various ways. Having a guide to show them the way, a group of assistants to manage supplies, pack animals or even a wagon, and a group of mercenaries to guard them all camping outside the dungeon sounds would be a fun game element. Such a group can even go with them into really deep dungeon dives (like the Underdark). This kind of thing is less necessary for campaigns set in well-develop lands, but would add a lot of character to expeditions into wild territories.

Simple rules for letting such characters be involved in battles alongside the party would also be nice. Ideally, you could scale such rules from having a cowardly torch-bearer/guide to having the PCs command small military units and lead them into battle.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, cleaner and better rules for mounts and mounted combat, as well as use of mounts in non-combat situations, would be another good part of the game. Well, as long as we don't need to make Ride checks again...

One thing I don't want to see, though, is linking these kinds of rules directly to classes. I want hired hands to be an option for the party, not a consequence of individual characters. Also, strict rules that say "wizards get an apprentice" while "fighters get strongholds" hard-codes too many story and character assumptions into the rules. I'm not a fan of that. I'd rather see the flexibility for anyone to get a squire/apprentice character, anyone to own a stronghold, or anyone to be the leader of a group.

 

[gloomhound]

I think D&D 5th should steal from Savage Worlds in this matter.

 

[DonTadow]

I think D&D 5th should steal from Savage Worlds in this matter.

I have no idea why these things are important in a dungeons and dragons game about adventuring. If you have these things, why are you adventuring?

It's the star trek dillemma. You have a ship of 1000 people, why are you going on away missions?

 

[Stormonu]

I have no idea why these things are important in a dungeons and dragons game about adventuring. If you have these things, why are you adventuring?

It's the star trek dillemma. You have a ship of 1000 people, why are you going on away missions?

Even Kirk, Spock and Bones didn't go down to the planet alone. They needed a few red shirts to absorb the initial attacks, after all.

Besides, Star Fleet regulations were that the captain (and certainly not the Second-in-command as well!) wasn't supposed be on possibly dangerous away missions. Like the true adventurer he was though, Kirk was usually the first into the fray anyways.

Anyways, it probably makes more sense if NPC cohorts and henchmen are available to the PCs - torchbearers and porters for the characters goods and gear, bodyguards or an apprentice for the wizard, a page for the Fighter's "golfbag", a lookout for the Rogue, an altar boy for the Priest, a hanger-on for the Bard, the Druid (or Ranger) and his animal companion, the Paladin and his trusted mount, etc.

These things are common all through the stories that are the basis of fantasy. Turning the PCs into a bunch of lone wolves with no social ties is counter to many of the tales we know, actually.

 

[gloomhound]

I have found in my games that NPC cohorts and henchmen are useful to the party to perhaps fill out skills or abilities that they my lack. As a DM I find them useful as a source of plot hooks and complications.

Savage Worlds handles this very well in an elegant manner that would benefit a paired down D&D system such as might be found in a future "basic" style game.

 

[SKyOdin]

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

What if we let people choose this kind of thing? The idea of the Paragon Path from 4E was interesting, but rather lacking. What if we combined it with the older edition concept of name level, and let a player choose a Paragon Path (Companion Path?) that represented their greater power over the world and other people.

For example, a Fighter could take the General Paragon Path, and attract loyal soldiers and lieutenants. A loner mage could take a Sage Hermit Paragon Path, and only have to put up with the kings coming to beg his wisdom. A Rogue could take the Merchant Lord Paragon Path, and acquire his own merchant company.

 

[ferratus]

What if we let people choose this kind of thing? The idea of the Paragon Path from 4E was interesting, but rather lacking. What if we combined it with the older edition concept of name level, and let a player choose a Paragon Path (Companion Path?) that represented their greater power over the world and other people.

For example, a Fighter could take the General Paragon Path, and attract loyal soldiers and lieutenants. A loner mage could take a Sage Hermit Paragon Path, and only have to put up with the kings coming to beg his wisdom. A Rogue could take the Merchant Lord Paragon Path, and acquire his own merchant company.

That sounds kind of restrictive to me. In 2e when my rogue gets his gang of thieves, I can put them to work as a thieves guild or a merchant company as I choose. When I'm a fighter, I can have my followers administer my holdings and stay in their garrison, or I can marshal them as an invading army that lives in a camp. I think I'd rather generally have followers than be told by a paragon path what I can do with them.

I also think you can probably cut out the followers without too much loss of personal power. Most of your followers are half your level or less after all, and are generally too precious to your social position to take adventuring. If you see your character as a lone wolf, you can just not bother to attract followers.