How Much is That Fighter in the Window?

[gothmaugCC]

sur ewhen I get home ill go look em up for ya

 

[Wolfwood2]

So how should 4e change that? Here's a simple system, as a starting suggestion. Assuming feats are still in, I present the new Leadership feats:

Leadership [General]
Prerequisites: Warlord level 5, any other class level 10
The character may lead up to three additional humanoids into battle. The total level of these creatures may not exceed [(1/2 Character Level)+CHA bonus]. Each humanoid requires 10gp per level in upkeep each day.

Wild Leadership [General]
Prerequisites: Druid level 5, Ranger level 5, any other class level 10
The character may lead up to three animals or magical beasts into battle. The total level of these creatures may not exceed [(1/2 Character Level)+CHA bonus]. Each creature requires 10gp per level in upkeep each day.

Undead Leadership [General]
Prerequisites: Evil, Cleric level 5, Wizard level 5, any other class level 10
The character may lead up to three undead creatures into battle. The total level of these creatures may not exceed [(1/2 Character Level)+CHA bonus]. Each creature requires 10gp per level in upkeep each day.

Based on this, spells like dominate humanoid and command undead could replace those feats temporarily or reduce upkeep costs.

What do you guys think? How would you fix hirelings for 4th Edition?

So then what happens if somebody without the feats tries to pay people to do something? Is their money no good?

One of the things I hope they get away from with 4E is the "fix it with a feat" philosophy where PCs have to pay a feat to do anything that the core rulebook doesn't explicitly allow.

Feats should allow a character to do things better, not bar characters who don't have the feat from attempting anything similar. It should be like Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise rather than 'no option to boost damage' vs. Power Attack.

 

[Ilium]

I agree with Aloïsius. Break out of the box a bit, use your imagination. ALL the rules, every single teeny itsy bitsy one is simply a guideline. Use what you want, discard the rest. Its your game after all.

This is exactly what I do. But in this case it would be nice if there was something to discard.

It's far too easy, when you're winging it, to say "the PCs are filthy rich...they should be paying their employees way better than this." It would be nice if there was a baseline "going rate" that meshed with the rest of the (admittedly shaky) D&D economy. You might as well say no equipment should have prices and the Gm should make it all up on the fly.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

So then what happens if somebody without the feats tries to pay people to do something? Is their money no good?

Making a feat was intended as a way to limit the total number of followers a PC can have; the slowdown of combat makes leading a large number of cohorts untenable. My thinking is that, with a feat in place, the DM now has a guideline. For PCs without these feats, they may need to pay more--the feats represent a certain personality trait that makes people naturally inclined to follow, and PCs who lack the feat will have to pay the difference in coin.

How would you go about limiting the number of followers a PC can lead? Or would you?

 

[Mercule]

I'd remove all hirelings, animal companions, and summoning or summoning-like spells and powers from PH1, so that all players are running only one character .

Player do only run one character. Henchmen, hirelings, cohorts, familiars, animal companions, etc., etc. are all under the control of the GM. Period. In 25+ years of gaming, the only exception that I can remember making (and not later regretting, in spades) was for a dual-personality character. Otherwise, even if the group is short enough PCs to make a full party, the extras are under GM control.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Could you point me to those guidelines in 3rd edition? There are some wonky rules in the DMG II, but that's all I've seen. All 3rd edition gives us is the price for unskilled laborers, which doesn't really cover mercenaries with class levels.

Arms & Equipment Guide, baby.

And I do happen to think that rules for retaining combat and non-combat NPC hirelings, creating strongholds and realms, and so on are something that D&D should develop; not in the core rules, but in a supplement (4e DMG2, anyone? Just in time for Paragon-level PCs!) or at least via 3rd-party development (Eden's Fields of Blood continues to be one of my favorite D&D supplements, ever). The fact is that these rules are just a codification of something that should be an expected possibility in the context of a campaign; assuming that there are regular PC-NPC interactions, at some point a player is going to want to know what it'll cost to hire x hardened mercenary NPC to come along on his next dungeon delve, or what the price for y recently-vacated fortified keep might be. Rules for this stuff are not impossible to design for d20 (and hopefully not for 4e) and can really add something to the game.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It's fine to say "roleplay it," but then you give your own example of where some guidance could be useful. You can't pay hirelings 1SP per day and expect them to face danger. Fair enough. But how much should you pay them? And how much should you pay that level 6 rogue?

Rather than throwing arbitrary numbers around maybe we could base it off the expected wealth by level table. I don't have my books here, so I'll make up numbers as an example.

Say a level 5 NPC is expected to have about 1000 GP in wealth (I know that's wrong, but work with me). So maybe he should expect 1% of that value daily, with an additional 1% on any day he faces danger. That's in addition to room and board, of course.

Is that reasonable? Does it scale? Does anybody have the books so we can use more real numbers?

Think about it this way... would the player of a 5th level character accept a job for a measly 10gp a day? Look at how much gold it costs to hire someone to cast a spell for you. 10gp a day is WAAAAAAY to low if any actual work is involved.

Honestly, I think the best common solution is for the character to demand an equal share of treasure if they are going to be accompanying the party somewhere. This gets the players to honestly evaluate if its worth it to bog down the game trucking around some NPC's.

 

[drothgery]

Player do only run one character. Henchmen, hirelings, cohorts, familiars, animal companions, etc., etc. are all under the control of the GM. Period. In 25+ years of gaming, the only exception that I can remember making (and not later regretting, in spades) was for a dual-personality character. Otherwise, even if the group is short enough PCs to make a full party, the extras are under GM control.

Hmm...

I've never seen a game where cohorts, followers, familiars, animal companions, and summoned creatures weren't under the control of the player. I don't necessarily think they're Bad Things (tm), but I think they make the game more complex, and if they don't show up except in an expansion book (or even PH2), that's fine.

 

[Gort]

I really hope they revamp the Leadership feat using the new minion rules, so the players can take along some loyal soldiers that (get this) might actually be able to hit a bad guy once in a while. There are loads of classes in 3.5 that are supposed to be "leader" types, like warpriests, bards, marshalls, but they never really get to lead anyone except their three best buddies, since a level 3 follower has no chance of contributing to a level 10 fight except getting killed offhand by an AOE spell or cleave.

I want to see my high-level paladins leading orders of knights, or thieves guilds, or units of soldiers, and being able to call on those people for meaningful help.

 

[The Human Target]

I'd automate it.

Say you hire a 1st level fighter. Let's say he adds +6 to damage on your turn. Just automatically, as he attacks what you attack.

Say you have a boar companion. Maybe he adds +2 to your AC. Just by standing around in front of you.

If you give up YOUR action, you can issue commands to your companion to activate their special abilities. You can command a fighter to use a feat, or the boar to attack. But then it's turn takes the place of yours -- you don't both get to go.

I rather like this concept.