PDA

View Full Version : [All D&D editions/Henchmen] Did later editions miss a trick here?



Kiero
2014-02-05, 05:01 AM
I started with Red Box and briefly Rules Cyclopedia, but quickly moved on to AD&D2e back in the day. Henchmen or hirelings were never a thing, I don't think we ever used them (I don't even know if AD&D2e has rules for henchmen, we never looked).

I started playing D&D4e in 2008, and given the complexity of PCs and the lack of consideration of allies in the books, they never featured. Indeed, I'm not even sure 4th edition has rules for henchmen. If it did, I'm not sure how easy it would be to run them without things bogging down even further.

Then I ran ACKS (based on the Expert Set and evolved) and featured henchmen. My players went the whole hog, everyone had a maxed out retinue with as many people as they could get. Far from being a dump stat, as is often the case, Charisma was deemed as one of the more important ones since it not only increases the size of your retinue, but improves the morale of all your people, too. They loved them, having a bunch of extras under their control as well as a host of other personalities in the mix.

They were also pretty easy to use in combat, given how fast things flow in ACKS anyway, rather than slowing things down (which they did a little, but not much), they added some nice tactical texture to the proceedings. One player got to form his own little phalanx with his dudes, and they were a lethal unit when they locked shields and moved together.

It turns PCs from footloose hobos into leaders of note with retinues to maintain. Which is also a place to channel away some of that loot, since followers expect to be rewarded for their loyalty.

Obviously the older editions had simpler characters, which made having extras less of a burden on the player. But I wonder if the later ones have an over-focus on the PC as an individual, with all the cool things being about what they can get, and not enough on them building up their own entourage. In doing so, I think there's a potential source of fun they're overlooking.

Actana
2014-02-05, 05:33 AM
4e does actually have supplemental rules for henchmen/companion characters, though it does warn that having them can slow down play. The rules start on page 27 in the DMG2. Haven't used them though, but were I to run a 4e campaign any time soon I would definitely give them a look.

But generally speaking, it all boils down to what the game is trying to do. ACKS, for example, has an entirely different focus from what 4e does. Where the oldest editions of D&D focused primarily on getting the loot out of a dungeon, 4e focuses on the tactical combat side of an epic fantasy story, with mechanics geared towards that. ACKS has its leadership rules which feature prominently in the kind of games it is geared to run.

In 4e, companion characters are an added extra, but not something that is expected to permanently feature in a campaign. It's just not made to do large groups of PC + henchmen vs monsters, and that's perfectly okay, as at least personally I appreciate focus from a system.

Rhynn
2014-02-05, 06:13 AM
Not surprisingly, I think henchmen are awesome and some editions (AD&D 2E* and onwards, increasingly; I think BECM deprecated them too) did miss out on a lot.

Of course, ACKS goes the extra mile, using the henchman system as a natural and elegant basis for feudal vassals.

* 2E has them, but they're much less prominent than in 1E.

Kiero
2014-02-05, 08:29 AM
4e does actually have supplemental rules for henchmen/companion characters, though it does warn that having them can slow down play. The rules start on page 27 in the DMG2. Haven't used them though, but were I to run a 4e campaign any time soon I would definitely give them a look.

But generally speaking, it all boils down to what the game is trying to do. ACKS, for example, has an entirely different focus from what 4e does. Where the oldest editions of D&D focused primarily on getting the loot out of a dungeon, 4e focuses on the tactical combat side of an epic fantasy story, with mechanics geared towards that. ACKS has its leadership rules which feature prominently in the kind of games it is geared to run.

In 4e, companion characters are an added extra, but not something that is expected to permanently feature in a campaign. It's just not made to do large groups of PC + henchmen vs monsters, and that's perfectly okay, as at least personally I appreciate focus from a system.

To be honest, a 4e character has enough going on, and a standard combat is already complicated enough without adding anything else. Even simplified, I wouldn't want to slow things down still further. We did try a combat with allied NPCs who had simple stat-blocks (militia in the town supporting the PCs as some strangers attacked), but that took a while to do. It wasn't something everyone was keen to repeat.

It's also worth noting that as something appearing in the DMG, they're entirely an option for the GM to allow. The CB doesn't have any means of generating them, either.


Not surprisingly, I think henchmen are awesome and some editions (AD&D 2E* and onwards, increasingly; I think BECM deprecated them too) did miss out on a lot.

Of course, ACKS goes the extra mile, using the henchman system as a natural and elegant basis for feudal vassals.

* 2E has them, but they're much less prominent than in 1E.

Unsurprisingly, I think they're awesome too, though before ACKS I was largely unaware of them. Despite having played AD&D2e for years.

Even without relying on them for vassals, it seems pretty well-developed to me.

BWR
2014-02-05, 08:34 AM
For the most part we don't bother with henchmen or followers. When (on the two and soon third occasion) we finally get a small domain of our own, then attracting followers and whatnot happens. Followers are then often NPCs we have met on our journeys, and they do mostly caretaker work, looking after the domain or acting as representatives to neighboring lords, etc. Taking them on adventure is rarely feasible or an attractive idea for the sort of games we usually play.

Airk
2014-02-05, 08:55 AM
I think this is one of those cases where they got phased out because no one ever used them, it seems, when the problem >might< have just been "the rules are too dumb and vague so everyone skips them."

That said, I don't think that was REALLY the problem. The problem, really, is that in most systems its annoying to try to keep track of the actions of too many individual actors.

Comet
2014-02-05, 10:07 AM
Henchmen, both of the lower level named character (temporary replacement!) and the nameless torchbearer/packmule variety are awesome.

In addition to making the players feel like bosses henchmen have another vital function: taking the bullet or picking up the scraps. This means that adventures don't have to be a series of level-appropriate combat scenarios. Instead you can have mountain climbing, dungeon crawling, sailing and what have you with real, potentially fatal consequences. There's safety in numbers, even if you aren't a psycopath that sends their henchmen in first and watches the fireworks.

Rhynn
2014-02-05, 11:51 AM
I've got a sort of secret unwritten rule when I run D&D games. When the party is taken by surprise by, say, a medusa or other creature with instant death attacks, a henchman gets targeted first. This way, the players get to decide how to react before any of their PCs get killed off. If they stay and fight, they're in for it.

If the PCs have no henchmen around, too bad...

theduck
2014-02-05, 03:37 PM
I have been running an online game of lamentations for a couple of my friends, and tried introducing the concept of hirelings and henchmen to the them this last session (admittedly a little inelegantly, since it was a threat to the town and everyone with them was from town, they were slightly more willing to fight than would be normal). Overall, I like the feel of them - they allow the party, which is small, to do more and handle more, partially as a reach to grab more treasure/loot. They also kept me from accidentally killing the party, though one of the PC's still ended the session at 0 hp and a broken arm.

I feel like the biggest change they add is, as Comet mentioned, a change in tone. I feel like they make things seem more... pragmatic, I suppose. You have a lot of money as an adventurer, why wouldn't you hire other people to carry your stuff, or offer others a share of the loot for their service - if they are good at what they do, they can easily pay for themselves. They also make things feel more like an expedition. What they don't do, I feel, is make you feel heroic - most contemporary stories do not have the hero's traveling with guards, servants and retainers; they generally only travel with other hero's, or love interests or whatnot.

Rhynn
2014-02-05, 03:48 PM
I run old-school modules (AD&D 1E and Basic, started with B4 The Lost City) for a party of 3 players, and I explained henchmen at the outset. They each got to start out with a 1st-level PC and either one 1st-level henchman of any class, or two 0-level henchmen. One went with the 0s (they're almost as good as 1st-level fighters, and there's two!), two with 1s. The mage got a second mage, and the henchman got lucky on the spell roll and knew sleep - which has solved about 50% of the fights they've been in (turning e.g. a deadly morlock ambush into a massacre of sleeping morlocks).

Without the henchmen, the party would be screwed. They know this, and have actually recruited locals from the dungeon already, to supplement the ranks (they've lost 4-5 henchmen and 2 PCs)...

I very much expect the PCs, at slightly higher levels, to be leading caravans of over a dozen people to their dungeons, establishing "base camp" outside with followers tending it, etc. (Naturally, I'll be making wandering monster rolls at the usual outdoors/wilderness intervals for the camp. :smallbiggrin: )

erikun
2014-02-05, 06:21 PM
I got into the game with AD&D2e, and I never saw hireling has something frequently used in the game. You'd occasionally see the hireling cleric for the "healbot" role or the hireling pack mule, but that was pretty much it.


But I wonder if the later ones have an over-focus on the PC as an individual, with all the cool things being about what they can get, and not enough on them building up their own entourage. In doing so, I think there's a potential source of fun they're overlooking.
While this might've taken place in earlier editions (2e Player's Options specifically), I think this particularly became noticeable with D&D3e. There were a lot of sourcebooks and a lot of content focused on prestige classes, feats, spells, gear and other options for the players to use on characters, while previous editions tended to feature lore or societies or other tools for DMs, with the occasional new player class or ability. The result was a lot more focus on PC strength and inevitable power increase, at least from what I saw.

Rhynn
2014-02-05, 06:37 PM
I actually recall a particular source for my understanding of henchmen: an issue of Dragon magazine had a list of 100 (AD&D 2E or 1E, I forget) henchmen, stats and gear and short descriptions and all. These were characters with classes and levels, not 0-level hirelings and porters and torchbearers.

Thrudd
2014-02-05, 07:16 PM
This is why charisma doesn't need to have magic and skills attached to it in early editions, but is definitely not a "dump stat". Having 15 henchmen (18 cha) is a significant advantage vs having one.
In the 1e DMG, Gygax mentions that henchmen are useful as a safety measure against rival player characters. Gives you an idea how some of those early games played out *lol*.

Don't get confused about hirelings, henchmen, and followers. Hirelings are usually level 0 laborers, professionals, or mercenaries that accompany you for one expedition or a predetermined amount of time for a fee. They don't get any experience or treasure (unless it was in their contract to get some). The only limit to how many you may have is how much money you have.

Henchmen are lower level NPC's controlled by the PC's who normally must be sought out at the PC's expense, and then also fully equipped and housed. They get a half share of XP and treasure from the adventures. Your cha determines the max number of henchmen that will follow you, and modifies their morale reactions. Eventually, one of them might become your primary PC, if your original character dies or decides to retire or is separated from the group. In AD&D, usually 4th level is about the earliest you can get a 1st level henchmen, since NPC's within 2 levels of your PC won't usually see you as a leader but as a companion at best.

Followers are automatically attracted when you build your stronghold or tower or thief's gang, or whatever, around level 8-10. They manage and protect your holdings, they don't accompany you on adventures or gain XP. They have an upkeep cost. Your Cha does not affect how many followers you get, it is a class feature.

Rhynn
2014-02-05, 07:45 PM
This is why charisma doesn't need to have magic and skills attached to it in early editions, but is definitely not a "dump stat". Having 15 henchmen (18 cha) is a significant advantage vs having one.

It's worth noticing that AD&D 2E (and IIRC 1E) goes into specific detail that your CHA determines your maximum lifetime number of henchmen. Each henchman dead is one down. DMs are also warned not to let PCs have more than one at a time. This is sensible.

It's a bit more restrained in e.g. ACKS, where you can have 4 + CHA mod (bonus or penalty) henchmen, at once; no total lifetime limit. This is actually a number you can have at once, and at high levels are sort of expected to (although only some of them would actively accompany you at once). ACKS elegantly uses the same mechanics for animal companions (the Beast Friendship proficiency) and feudal vassals, etc.


Don't get confused about hirelings, henchmen, and followers. Hirelings are usually level 0 laborers, professionals, or mercenaries that accompany you for one expedition or a predetermined amount of time for a fee.

Yes, indeed. A henchman is, generally, a NPC with class levels. 0-level cannon fodder are hirelings. (ACKS has rules for hirelings of various types graduating into 1st-level classed characters by earning some experience through any of various means. XP from adventuring makes fighters, XP from thieves' guild hijinks makes thieves, XP from helping magic research makes mages...)

Incidentally, I've always used half-shares of treasure and XP for henchmen: that is, a party of 3 PCs and 3 henchmen splits the XP and treasure into a total of 9 shares, and each PC gets 2 and each henchman 1. ACKS does things a bit different: combat XP is a half-share (IIRC), but treasure is only 15% of a share. (Treasure XP is the major source of XP.) Obviously, though, generous PCs can increase the share and reap the benefits in increased morale/loyalty, as well as higher henchman levels. So long as the henchman is of lower level than you (half-rate XP ensures this consistently), they remain a henchman.

I also use henchmen as replacement PCs: if a PC dies, my players have three options:
1. New PC with 0 XP (or whatever they've put into their XP reserve by conspicuous consumption and orgies)
2. Make henchman into new PC
3. Raising the dead

Moreover, any time a PC is killed or incapacitated, the player can continue to control their henchmen and still play; and if the player runs out of henchmen, another player lets them control a henchman of theirs. If the party is running out of henchmen and has a PC deficit, they're probably in deep trouble...

TuggyNE
2014-02-05, 07:58 PM
I've got a sort of secret unwritten rule

Oops? :smalltongue:

cfalcon
2014-02-05, 08:35 PM
The earlier versions distinguished between "henchmen" and "followers". Without a strict map to make things so complex, you would run around the table getting everyone's intent, and then resolve the round in init order. This was harder than 3+ in terms of effort, but each round was super hella fast compared to 3+, so it wasn't out of line to have henchmen on some missions and followers on others.

In 3.0, this rule mostly became the Leadership feat. It let you get a similar kind of "alternate PC", and as such was obviously the "best" feat- clearly meant to be enabled on a per campaign basis, a way to dramatically increase player power without unbalancing character power in any way (your fighter isn't any stronger, but his cleric companion sure makes the team quite good).


One of the big features of the classes considered "undepowered" in the earlier game editions was honestly the stuff you got for being high level. You would reach "name" level and gain a place in the game world- a castle, a keep, something- and you would attract followers. Without such a massive gap in health between levels, your followers could meaningfully help in a relatively large melee, though many would die, and you could not always replace them. Certainly an interesting class feature, and something that the fighter really got to play with and the "more powerful" ranger/druid/wizard/etc did not really enjoy with the same freedom with.

Actually tracking all these little guys was harsh though, and it was certainly not what everyone wanted out of the game. Many games ignored them, and as such came to pretty sharp conclusions regarding class power that were certainly true in most games, but likely not true in the spirit of the way things were designed initially.


I ultimately think that most players want a strategic decision to make on their turn. A LOT of players love playing line of sight games, tossing a debuff, effecting the field, or getting in a risky position for a powerful play. The game allowing these things, however, has to be broken down in the way 3.x and 4 are, not the simulclash of 2 and 1. By the rules you could absolutely lose your turn if you declared an action that became impossible or silly by your turn, which sometimes could require a lot of decision making on the DM's part just for relatively mundane events. I played at tables where saying "I attack the nearest orc" was ok, as was "I attack the tallest enemy", as was "I attack the leader of the orcs", but you would absolutely be held to that on the second (action) pass of each round- the first two would often spread damage in a poorly strategic manner (which was thought to be more reminiscent of the chaos of a melee instead of the focus-target mentality that is clearly superior by D&D rules- it was considered a trade-off), while the final command could result in your character doing nothing but closing should the leader retreat or take an impenetrable position (aka, a wasted turn).


Taking spacial considerations into the game made a bunch of henchmen or followers very onerous to play. When I deal with a bunch of trained but weak enemies for my PCs, I use modified swarm rules (aka: 16th level characters versus airship sailors and their high level guardians, the high level bad guys are built like PCs and the sailors are simmed as a group)- having a table full of followers would make our already slow battles grind insanely, and each player having a henchman would double the time of battle.

In my current game, the PCs have three powerful characters who would love to accompany them and share their goals- a Dark Knight, a Gunslinger, and a Wizardess. I flat out told them out of game that they would have to select but one for almost all the fights, just based on the goals of keeping most fights to a reasonable length. If the goal is so important that I can't reasonably come up with an excuse, then the more the merrier (and we'll just deal with the longer fight). The PCs control these NPCs when they come around, they are essentially a part of the party for them.



Anyway, fight length and board complexity. I think that's why they aren't baseline any more. The first version to make the board mostly mandatory also made them not class features, but optional features- I don't think that's a coincidence.

Kiero
2014-02-06, 05:09 AM
It's a bit more restrained in e.g. ACKS, where you can have 4 + CHA mod (bonus or penalty) henchmen, at once; no total lifetime limit. This is actually a number you can have at once, and at high levels are sort of expected to (although only some of them would actively accompany you at once). ACKS elegantly uses the same mechanics for animal companions (the Beast Friendship proficiency) and feudal vassals, etc.


There's also Proficiencies that increase your maximum number, something my players cottoned on to right away. Everyone has a maxed out retinue of henchmen and I think they're even keeping an eye out to suitable replacements should anything happen to their personal crews.


Moreover, any time a PC is killed or incapacitated, the player can continue to control their henchmen and still play; and if the player runs out of henchmen, another player lets them control a henchman of theirs. If the party is running out of henchmen and has a PC deficit, they're probably in deep trouble...

Indeed, this was one of the major selling points of having retinues in my game. Given there's no magic at all (thus no insta-healing, no resurrection, etc) you need that buffer and the option of a backup character. One of the PCs got badly wounded and needed a couple of weeks to recover, so when he wasn't around, the player used his highest-level henchman instead.

Dawgmoah
2014-02-07, 03:13 PM
As an old-time 1st edition player I take henchmen and hirelings for granted. Now firmly entrenched in the 3.5 world I notice most people don't ever think of them. The last party I played with was surprised when my character hired two warriors and several laborers to accompany us as well as renting a wagon, team, and driver. Told them we had the hard work of going through the dungeon and risking our lives for the treasures. Why would I want to stand watch and do the back breaking labor of hauling everything out of the dungeon and worrying about how to get it to town?