Retainers, henchmen, hirelings and redshirts?

Blackbrrd said:
Let us take 3.5 as an example:
You take the leadership feat at level 10. You get a second character at level 8. Now you have the actions of a 10th level character and an 8th level character.

You can then compare it to taking.. Lightning reflexes which gives +2 reflex saves.

If you are just going for pure min/max aspect, what would be the best feat? The leadership feat? Yeah.. Just make the cohort a cleric at let him buff you, heal you, help you flank, etc, etc...

Let us say you are playing with 4 other players. All the other players have had their characters take the leadership feat and gotten an extra character to play. You have only got one...

What's the problem with player-controlled characters other than their main PCs in combat? I still don't see the issue whatsoever; hell, most of us who've been playing since 1st edition (maybe even you included) have been running a boatload of NPCs, hirelings and henchmen. The game doesn't necessarily have to revolve entirely around PCs, unlike what 4e propounds.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Moniker said:
What's the problem with player-controlled characters other than their main PCs in combat? I still don't see the issue whatsoever; hell, most of us who've been playing since 1st edition (maybe even you included) have been running a boatload of NPCs, hirelings and henchmen. The game doesn't necessarily have to revolve entirely around PCs, unlike what 4e propounds.

The problem is that it is tremendously imbalanced, and it has always been. DnD has always revolved around the PCs though. Anything that had to do with running an army or an empire was always either an afterthought or an entirely separate book. "Because that's how things used to be" is exactly the mindset that WotC is attempting to leave behind (with fair success IMHO).
 

Since this is the rules forum, I'll try to stick to what the rules have to say:

The sidebar on page 116 of the DMG seems to strongly imply that allies, henchmen, hirelings, mercenaries, etc, are run by the DM, as any other NPC would be.



Cheers,
Roger
 

Moniker said:
RE: Economy of Actions

I personally never saw an issue with economy of actions in any iteration of Dungeons and Dragons.
Well, I did.
Moniker said:
Don't quite understand the idea behind fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place, but I can identify with eliminating Leadership as a feat and working hirlings/henchman/NPCs as roleplaying devices.
It was broken. It was broken in the same way that polymorph was broken, i.e. it's quite possible that it never caused any problems in _your_ game, but it did cause problems in lots of other players' games.
 

From a purely "game aesthetic/attitude" point of view, I doubt the designers wanted to encourage the characters to have a group of people they knew were going to die follow them around. Keeping your own group of cannon fodder isn't really heroic.

Unless you're Captain Kirk.:D
 





I guess most hirelings would be minions of an appropriate level. How much they cost is up in the air, but since they are risking their lives, maybe level^2 gp for coming along on an adventure with a bonus wage for participating in a fight.

For henchmen, I suppose the DM could create an extra character for the group. He could be hired with a wage or taking a share of treasure. I see nothing radical needed, really. There is already a note in the DMG on adding more monsters to encounters if you bring allies along with the PCs.

I think minions on the PCs' side can be a nice touch in many adventures; they highlight the danger of the opponents and they also are good "rewards" for making skill challenges etc. A nice way to add temporary power to the PCs.
 

Remove ads

Top