The logistics of the squire

[Olgar Shiverstone]

They're all clones named "Nodwick".

Cuts down on the paperwork when the PCs feed them to traps and monsters and such.

 

[Garthanos]

The Leadership feat does exist for this sort of thing, but obviously the best solution involves a pile of dead bards.

And there was much rejoicing

 

[Garthanos]

You've hit immediately on the difficulty with the 'squire' strategy. It works only on one condition, that the random encounters the 'squires' will have near the entrance to the dungeon will not be nearly as difficult as the encounters in the dungeon. .

What do you think of the idea of giving a fighter a precursor to the followers they get an name level in the form of a fighting squire, ie one capable of making those saves rather akin to a robin for your batman. (Sometimes they might even help you make a save when you would have failed or other effects like having a different non-weapon proficiencies than you) . Perhaps sometimes your knightly character may sacrifice an attack to help the robin but most of the time he is a benefit.

 

[Celebrim]

What do you think of the idea of giving a fighter a precursor to the followers they get an name level in the form of a fighting squire...

I think if any PC finds an NPC that he can convince to follow him by whatever means, that this ought to be allowed to happen. I don't think it should in any fashion be tied to anything that doesn't exist in that in game universe such as metagame artifacts like class or level. In other words, if you get a squire, it's because you found someone in game who wants to be your squire, and you accepted them into that role. It's not because you hit 8th level or you are a fighter.

 

[Garthanos]

It's not because you hit 8th level or you are a fighter.

It certainly is in AD&D, but I just asked you what you thought.

Level is it seems obviously used in this case as an abstraction of fame...

The 1e/2e game was already written with explicit your fame lets you build this castle and attract these type of followers at level X which no other class does ---> that horse is already gone from the barn even if you think it is Meta. Sure realistically it may be an attempt to give fighters something when the game designers were letting wizards warp the hell out of reality but it was written under an assumption of a culture too.

I think you are completely wrong if you think such a the squire being a class feature is actually different than what is already there in the rules.

The game already is basically defining traditions ie a Martial Culture where being a fighter meant other fighterish types paid attention to you "advancing your career" aka leveling and indeed you were noticed and able to build that castle, becoming a magnet for ones wanting to join their fame with yours ... This is apparently not a tradition that Wizards and Rangers have AND yes it's making some off camera story assumptions for all classes but they are built into the class. Similarly that could reasonably be the same kind of culture where individuals make themselves squires for basically the same reason in addition to getting trained and maybe as an avenue for a non noble to become a Lord. These are reflected in fiction and to a lesser degree history.

I could see low level wizards actualy having a tradition of having a magically bonded bodyguard too (see Aes Sedai from Wheel of Time) and making that a part of the game if they were balanced around having that it could be fun (see Druids in 3rd edition having a Bear as a companion though admittedly it wasnt balanced and basically granted them a full on fighter worth of benefit instead of a side kick benefit it was meant to be)

 

[Celebrim]

It certainly is in AD&D, but I just asked you what you thought.

You asked me what I thought. And my answer is that tying followers to level is and always has been poor design. It didn't even work well in 1e AD&D, and I say this as someone that had name level characters and who had built strongholds in 1e AD&D. There are a great many great and abiding innovations of D&D - hit points, classes, levels, experience, etc. - that have and which deserve to stand the test of time. But fixed followers upon obtain a fixed level is a design idea which belongs with RPGs war gaming roots, and doesn't well suit an RPG.

I think you are completely wrong if you think such a the squire being a class feature is actually different than what is already there in the rules.

I didn't say it was. I said that those rules are poor rules, and the designers are making mistakes. Without going into an elaborate discussion of why, the underlying flaws in the idea are first is that everyone is playing the same game, in the same setting, with the same character, and secondly that story does not particularly matter. The first flaw is a failure of imagination and not really excusable since the late '70's, and the second flaw is a failure to recognize why the PnP RPG has endured even though several of the original reasons for which it was played no long apply.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Squires can used to reload crossbows.... and be bitten by zombies or werebeasts.

Aren't there any pokeball to save squires when there aren't necessary?

 

[Garthanos]

Without going into an elaborate discussion of why, the underlying flaws in the idea are first is that everyone is playing the same game, in the same setting, with the same character,

Thank you for even a minor elaborating.

You are right not everyone wants to be that baronette or even plays their characters as standing in the lime light so they become famous, nor do they necessarily want to play that sub game with the castle and troups and not everyone wants their character to be a batman with a robin or more thematically Lancelot with a Parcifal or perhaps the very first Gilgamesh and Enkidu. The fighter is very general class and at minimum or most? that kind of thing needs to be offered as a choice with similarly valuable alternate options if it is used.

That said I do not think making story choices part of the character concept (via background choices or via various career advancement choices like classes and feats) makes story unimportant it gives the player agency over elements of the story that is all. If I was playng an Aes Sedai from the world fo the Wheel of Time it would be inappropriate to NOT have that bondmate and that character/class needs designed with that in mind... just like if you were playing Druid in 3e and you get a bear.

 

[Celebrim]

That said I do not think making story choices part of the character concept (via background choices or via various career advancement choices like classes and feats) makes story unimportant it gives the player agency over elements of the story that is all. If I was playng an Aes Sedai from the world fo the Wheel of Time it would be inappropriate to NOT have that bondmate and that character/class needs designed with that in mind... just like if you were playing Druid in 3e and you get a bear.

Ok, so there is a (potentially) big difference in 'getting a bear' and 'getting a follower', and that is that 'getting a bear' is not something that people normally do in real life, but getting a friend, or a companion, or a body guard, or a retainer, or a heir, or a student, or what have you is something that happens all the time in real life through very natural processes of communication based on mutual self-interest on the part of all parties.

The problem with making "career advancement choices" the gateways regulating these relationships is it assumes that forming relationships is not a part of play. In other words, it assumes that PC's don't get married, don't hire retainers, don't save peoples lives, don't form partnerships with NPCs, don't protect the innocent, don't have children, and generally don't cultivate relationships as part of play. In other words, it assumes role play very much isn't a part of play and that no matter how rational and reasonable it is for a relationship to form between a PC and an NPC, the GM will just say no because all relationships have to be paid for in abstract metagame currency.

But that is terribly destructive to play. Dick Grayson doesn't become Bruce Wayne's ward because Bruce Wayne's player decides to forgo gaining more ranks in judo or lockpicking or whatever in order to pick up a retainer. Dick Grayson becomes Bruce Wayne's ward because Bruce watches Dick's parents get murdered in front of his eyes, and then the two form a relationship based around the mutual desire to bring the culprit to justice and the mutual understanding they share as both orphans. So if Bruce Wayne reluctantly buys more Judo, am I supposed to kill this plot line?

PC's in my game develop relationships with NPC's in surprising ways that I don't expect through RP. And when roleplay leads to the reasonable conclusion that the characters have mutual respect for each other, and it is advantageous for the NPC to take employment with the PC and the NPC's motives align with what the PC asks of them, then PC's a friend. What am I supposed to do, block that just because it hasn't been paid for in currency?

The whole mindset here is busted. If a PC finds a magic sword, must they spend some sort of career advancement currency before they can keep it? If a PC finds a pile of treasure, must they spend some sort of career advancement currency before they can say that they have resources? If a PC impresses a high ranking noble who is a peer of the realm, perhaps by saving his honor and the life of his son, and because the PC has impressed the noble the noble wishes to take on the PC as a vassal and bestow upon him a title and manor, does PC the have to have some sort of career advancement currency lying around to allow this story to reach its logical conclusion? If the PC woos a wealthy heir and has high charisma, and roll plays out some sort of love triangle, which comes to some conclusion when the rival is revealed to be a dishonorable cad, and the PC rolls a series of fantastic successes with his social skills, does the PC need some sort of career advancement currency to successfully marry, gain station, gain income, gain allies, and so forth? Or can we just let the story happen as it logically ought to?

See the problem with making that cost abstract career advancement capital is that you both will tend to have players trying to cash a check that they have nothing to withdraw on, wanting to buy something and get it delivered now for which no story exists, and secondly when they do pay that price for it they tend to get really upset when another player simply gets the same sort of reward for free having acted out the story. It's all right and good to have a 'Marry the Princess' card or a 'Receive Lands and Titles' card in some sort of game that is about something other than RPing, like a strategic board game where the players are competing with each other to have the most reknown points at the end of it and we don't really care about story. Such a game is basically Monopoly with a different color and different text on the 'Chance' and 'Community Chest' cards. And that's fun for what it is, but it isn't a very great RPG.

So as for offering all these things as 'a choice', I'm totally for it. As for thinking you can handle the complexity of a network of social relationships with something as inflexible and simplistic as a feat, I think that's entirely bogus and ultimately problematic for any game more complex than a weekly competitive treasure hunt.

 

[Shasarak]

Hmm, I am not convinced that having followers linked to level is bad design, there are always going to be class features that you dont like unless you play games like Pathfinder 2.

It will be interesting to see which way Matt Colvilles Stronghold supplement goes.