What exactly are hirelings/mercenary prices balanced for?

[Tamior]

Basically, no matter where I look (DMG I, DMG II, AaEG, pathfinder SRD, whatever, really) a cost of a basic mercenary (lvl 1 warrior) seems to be 1 gp/day at most (more like 2-4 sp/day by default).

Again, "basic mercenary" is usually a character with at least leather armor, 5-ish HP's and +2-+3 attack bonus for it's preferred weapon, with that weapon easily being a ranged/reach weapon.

What I really struggle to understand, is what exactly are those costs supposed to be balanced for? Why would a low (below level 5) PC ever NOT want to hire those? Why bother buying a flask of alchemist’s fire, if for that price you get a couple of bodies that deals the same 1d6 (or more) per round each?

Conversely, if mercenaries are not supposed to be allowed to help the PC's on their adventures, what are those prices even for?

P.S. While mercenaries technically do get their half-share of loot, it still seems very questionable, since the increase in firepower is massive, and the party, by all accounts, will simply get more loot per day.

[Elricaltovilla]

Mercenaries are useless against swarms. Alchemist's Fire is not. So that's one reason.

[Tamior]

Mercenaries are useless against swarms. Alchemist's Fire is not. So that's one reason.
What exactly prevents you from giving each mercenary a torch and 10 flasks of normal oil?

EDIT: Plus, we are comparing overall usefulness, not usefulness in some super-particular situation. Overall, mercenaries seem like they are under-priced by at least a factor of 10x-100x, given how much effective combat power they can bring compared to equipment/consumables.

[zlefin]

I don't know; my impression is that they're based more on historical pricing patterns for people in that line of work; and they're for work with a chance of trouble, but low likelihood on a daily basis. i.e. guarding a caravan or warehouse. fees in an actual war are likely to be somewhat higher (of course they'll also need to be employed for a few months most likely at a minimum, given travel times and typical historical warfare)

the economics in dnd was always quite poor.

[Tamior]

I don't know; my impression is that they're based more on historical pricing patterns for people in that line of work; and they're for work with a chance of trouble, but low likelihood on a daily basis. i.e. guarding a caravan. fees in an actual war are likely to be somewhat higher (of course they'll also need to be employed for a few months most likely at a minimum, given travel times and typical historical warfare)

the economics in dnd was always quite poor.
Yea, that's what I gather, but it really makes me wonder, are PC's supposed to never actually use mercs at that price when "adventuring" or what?
I mean, an average low-level dungeon is, what, 3-5 days away from the city, (assuming it's not IN the city). So we are looking at two weeks contract, so about ~10 gp per merc even if we go with the highest pricing we can find in RAW.
Why go through the pains of balancing all the equipment and armor and consumables, and then leave mercs essentially almost free?

[Gullintanni]

I don't know; my impression is that they're based more on historical pricing patterns for people in that line of work; and they're for work with a chance of trouble, but low likelihood on a daily basis. i.e. guarding a caravan or warehouse. fees in an actual war are likely to be somewhat higher (of course they'll also need to be employed for a few months most likely at a minimum, given travel times and typical historical warfare)

the economics in dnd was always quite poor.

The prices in 3.5 are a holdover from the prices in AD&D, where a hireling was about the same. 3.5 has WBL standards; whereas AD&D did not, so if your DM wasn't generous with loot, hirelings could be expensive.

The pricing of hirelings in AD&D was based on the idea that the scarcity of gold in AD&D society was analogous to the scarcity of gold in our society; which meant that a peasant taking home 30gp/month was, in fact, a fairly wealthy individual relative to his dirt farming peers.

[King of Nowhere]

1) the pay is for regualr guard duties, with relatively low risk. if you are hiring for a potentiially deadly dungeon crawl, I expect pays to be much higher.

2) you are not supposed to have much use for mercenaries in a dungeon. The place is too narrow to use numbers. At best the guy can shoot from the back with a big cover penalty since the rest of the party is in the way.

3) you share xp with the mercenary, so you lose xp as well as treasure. and bigger numbers won't help against area effect. so the party who goes around with mercenaries will stay low level and they will all diie the first time they meet a wizard with a fireball.

But the more important reasons are related to metagaming:
4) the more thugs you bring, the more it cramps action economy at the table. You'll spend one hour taking the turns of all the mercenaries you brought, and it is boring for everyone

5) the purpose of the game is to play your character. if you hire a mercenary company and play that, it defies the purpose. unless that's exactly the game you're running, but then a turn-based strategy game or economic simulation would fit better.

Overall, I think the price is balanced for the purpose of raising an army. that's where they balanced the price

[Zeb]

The flask of alchemist’s fire has a much smaller chance of turning on me after a hard fight and keeping all the loot for itself?

I don't have to worry about feeding, transporting it or having to keep paying it more if the mission runs long?

Most flasks are not evil so my pally can adventure without it causing him to lose abilities?

They are also immune to mind control and charm person?

No pesky family who wants recompense for getting them broken?

[Zaq]

The answer is glib, but it’s probably correct: I don't think they’re balanced for anything.

D&D 3.5 isn’t designed for the players cheaply throwing a ton of extra bodies at a problem. If they’re weak, they’re annoying and take time. If they’re buffed up to be strong (Dragonfire Inspiration, anyone?), the listed prices are clearly inappropriate. Animate dead spam is bad enough without super-cheap mercs whose numbers are really only limited by your face’s social skills and your GM’s patience.

I do recall 4e having an explicit rule somewhere saying that the PCs are not intended to have large numbers of allies on the battle mat, especially in the context of powers that grant all of your allies a bonus or that grant all of your allies an extra attack. I don’t recall if there’s anything similarly explicit in 3.5, but either way, I don’t think that the printed costs for mercs had any sort of actual balance point in mind.

[Lapak]

The prices in 3.5 are a holdover from the prices in AD&D, where a hireling was about the same. 3.5 has WBL standards; whereas AD&D did not, so if your DM wasn't generous with loot, hirelings could be expensive.

The pricing of hirelings in AD&D was based on the idea that the scarcity of gold in AD&D society was analogous to the scarcity of gold in our society; which meant that a peasant taking home 30gp/month was, in fact, a fairly wealthy individual relative to his dirt farming peers.
This. It's a pure carryover. Earlier editions focused on the idea of hirelings and henchman to greater and lesser degrees, while 3.5's default assumption is that the PCs are the party and that's it. AD&D had a greater logistics focus and expected that you might need spear-carriers, torch-bearers, laborers to lug your treasure home, a baggage train, mercenaries to guard all of this and/or provide a second rank in actual combat, etc.

Honestly, I think it ties back to the magic-creep between editions (which is most of why WBL is a thing); a mid-level party in 3.5 probably has magic that covers all their logistical needs. Spells to create food and water, bags of holding to carry stuff around, flight or teleportation to whisk you to and from adventure sites, and so on.

[Hackulator]

Mercenary loyalty is not guaranteed. Getting a lot of mercenaries killed can have various dangerous in game consequences.

[HouseRules]

More than just that much. Recall Chainmail game, each character level is equivalent to a section of 20 soldiers.


Level 1 = Section of 20 = 5th to 1st Sergeant's Section
Level 2 = Small Platoon of 40 = 2nd Lieutenant's Platoon
Level 3 = Large Platoon of 60 = 1st Lieutenant's Platoon
Level 4 = Small Company of 80 = Captain Lieutenant (Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel, and Major have an extra 1st Lieutenant that holds this position)
Level 5 = Small Company of 100 = 3rd Captain's Company
Level 6 = Medium Company of 120 = 2nd Captain's Company
Level 7 = Medium Company of 140 = 1st Captain's Company
Level 8 = Large Company of 160 = Major's Company
Level 9 = Large Company of 180 = Lieutenant Colonel's Company
Level 10 = Max Company of 200 = Colonel's Company


Then, the game adjust to say that 20 is too difficult to count by (when Chainmail is no longer the source for mass combat), and counting by 10 is easier (when Swords & Spells is the source for mass combat).


Level 1 = Squad of 10
Level 2 = Section of 20
Level 3 = Large Section of 30
Level 4 = Small Platoon of 40
Level 5 = Medium Platoon of 50
Level 6 = Large Platoon of 60
Level 7 = Small Company of 70
Level 8 = Small Company of 80
Level 9 = Small Company of 90
Level 10 = Medium Company of 100


You are suppose to have ten level 0 hirelings/followers per level in the old school style of play.

[zlefin]

Yea, that's what I gather, but it really makes me wonder, are PC's supposed to never actually use mercs at that price when "adventuring" or what?
I mean, an average low-level dungeon is, what, 3-5 days away from the city, (assuming it's not IN the city). So we are looking at two weeks contract, so about ~10 gp per merc even if we go with the highest pricing we can find in RAW.
Why go through the pains of balancing all the equipment and armor and consumables, and then leave mercs essentially almost free?

I guess not; you're not supposed to use the mercs for adventuring. (that's assuming you could even find a sufficient quantity of them).
the very existence of dungeons with treasure doesn't make a whole lot of sense. if they actually had decent treasure they would've been picked clean by scavengers long ago; or higher level parties would do them trivially. (i.e. why do a level appropriate dungeon when you can easily do a 5 levels lower dungeon every day or otherwise often and still make very nice money on a daily basis).

the mercs also aren't all that free if they get a cut of the treasure; especially if you hire a bunch of them. even if they only get half-shares, that could easily add up to a whole lot.

[Tamior]

1) the pay is for regualr guard duties, with relatively low risk. if you are hiring for a potentiially deadly dungeon crawl, I expect pays to be much higher.

Well, 1gp/day is exactly this "much higher" price from 2sp/day of "regular guard duties". That's how it works by RAW.


2) you are not supposed to have much use for mercenaries in a dungeon. The place is too narrow to use numbers. At best the guy can shoot from the back with a big cover penalty since the rest of the party is in the way.

Technically rarely, if ever, true, otherwise PC's wouldn't be able to use summons/animals. In practically any dungeon (even with 5ft wide corridors) nothing really prevents you from putting all of your mercenaries into larger room and luring enemies into it one-by-one. If enemies refuse to follow, this makes the job for caster/snipers stupidly easy.
Also, by RAW, nothing prevents you from using mercenary as the bait.


3) you share xp with the mercenary, so you lose xp as well as treasure. and bigger numbers won't help against area effect. so the party who goes around with mercenaries will stay low level and they will all diie the first time they meet a wizard with a fireball.

You explicitly DON'T share XP with mercs.

Adventurers don’t gain experience points, so if the PCs need a higher-level adventurer for a subsequent mission, they must find a different one.



4) the more thugs you bring, the more it cramps action economy at the table. You'll spend one hour taking the turns of all the mercenaries you brought, and it is boring for everyone.

5) the purpose of the game is to play your character. if you hire a mercenary company and play that, it defies the purpose. unless that's exactly the game you're running, but then a turn-based strategy game or economic simulation would fit better.

And that's exactly one of the reason I wonder what are those costs even for. Why put something so bad/undesirable (on so many levels) into the game at a dirt-cheap price?


Overall, I think the price is balanced for the purpose of raising an army. that's where they balanced the price.
Might be the case, but the rulebooks never ever frame it that way.

[Tamior]

The flask of alchemist’s fire has a much smaller chance of turning on me after a hard fight and keeping all the loot for itself?
RAW, this should not happen if you don't treat your mercs excessively badly or/and hire evil ones (Detect Evil is lvl 1 spell).
If a DM just does it by fiat, well, that's just DM doing things by fiat.


I don't have to worry about feeding, transporting it or having to keep paying it more if the mission runs long?
RAW, survival checks keep them feed on the way. And how exactly do you travel at low levels that mercs can't follow you naturally? As for price, at 1gp/day what exactly do you mean by "runs long"? It would have to run for YEARS to actually matter for lvl 2+ PC's at that price.


Most flasks are not evil so my pally can adventure without it causing him to lose abilities?
Most mercs aren't evil either.


They are also immune to mind control and charm person?
About as immune as PC's at low levels, really.


No pesky family who wants recompense for getting them broken?
Level 1-3 commoners are going to do exactly what vs a party of murderhobos that is perpetually moving? I mean, if those mercs had a rich family and influential family, they wouldn't be lvl 1 mercs.

[Tamior]

The answer is glib, but it’s probably correct: I don't think they’re balanced for anything.

D&D 3.5 isn’t designed for the players cheaply throwing a ton of extra bodies at a problem. If they’re weak, they’re annoying and take time. If they’re buffed up to be strong (Dragonfire Inspiration, anyone?), the listed prices are clearly inappropriate. Animate dead spam is bad enough without super-cheap mercs whose numbers are really only limited by your face’s social skills and your GM’s patience.

That's exactly the impression I'm getting.
But the same prices keep being re-printed from 3.0 DMG all the way to recent PF stuff. So it just fells ... bizarre, I guess? Feels like I'm missing something. Some footnote saying "don't actually use these, they are here just for the show".

[Tamior]

the mercs also aren't all that free if they get a cut of the treasure; especially if you hire a bunch of them. even if they only get half-shares, that could easily add up to a whole lot.
Eh, you still keep all the XP by RAW, and the dip in the gold might not even be that bad once you factor in reduced consumables consumption rates.


I guess not; you're not supposed to use the mercs for adventuring. (that's assuming you could even find a sufficient quantity of them).
the very existence of dungeons with treasure doesn't make a whole lot of sense. if they actually had decent treasure they would've been picked clean by scavengers long ago; or higher level parties would do them trivially. (i.e. why do a level appropriate dungeon when you can easily do a 5 levels lower dungeon every day or otherwise often and still make very nice money on a daily basis).

I always assume low level dungeons simply "respawn". Another goblin tribe moves in, or another burial ground becomes restless, etc. The reason high-level PC's don't do them daily is mostly because it would take pretty long time to actully find them.
Actually, I think this might be a very good reason why you don't want to bring mercs. That is, as soon as you start bringing them to dungeons, you start getting 10 levels higher adventurers teleporting there in front of you and getting all the loot, because most mercs are promised twice the reward for simply giving the coordinates of said dungeon by pressing a button on a tracking rune given by those adventurers.

[King of Nowhere]

Might be the case, but the rulebooks never ever frame it that way.

on the other hand, it is mentioned somewhere that one could get lands and manors and titles as a quest reward, so it is clear that the creators gave at least some thought on the possibility that you may play a landlord when you reach high level.
Of course, it does not mesh well with the whole other mechanics - not much reason to raise an army, when you could be more effective by popping in, throwing some AoE, then popping out; and anyone who may seriously be after you is not going to be bothered by an army of mooks either. For that reason, nobody in my world keeps standing armies, they either hire high level people or they give up.
but at least the mechanic of becoming a landlord and hiring an army is somewhat consistent.



the very existence of dungeons with treasure doesn't make a whole lot of sense. if they actually had decent treasure they would've been picked clean by scavengers long ago; or higher level parties would do them trivially. (i.e. why do a level appropriate dungeon when you can easily do a 5 levels lower dungeon every day or otherwise often and still make very nice money on a daily basis).

In my campaign world, dungeons filled with treasure are mostly a myth of easy money; low level adventurers tend to wander around searching every hole in the ground for loot because of that. many of them die, and their gear becomes the loot. It's calculated that some 90% of loot from dungeons is the gear of those who got killed searching it before. Still, there is enough of it to keep others searching. High level guys ignore all of it because the likelyhood of stumbling over a decent piece of gear are very small.

Tamior's explanation on "respawning" (refilling would be a better term maybe) is also true, and it accounts for the remaining 10% of the loot.
No more than that because by now evil cultists and whatnot are smart enough to avoid ancient ruins, caves and other similar places that are raided by ggreedy low level adventurers regularly

[Tamior]

No more than that because by now evil cultists and whatnot are smart enough to avoid ancient ruins, caves and other similar places that are raided by ggreedy low level adventurers regularly
Well, goblins (and the like) need to live somewhere.
So I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that every so often they do move into ancient ruins or caves, lured by the proximity of those spots to inhabited/traveled places they themselves can raid and loot.
But, yea, less lucky adventurers definitely play a major role in repopulating dungeons with loot.

[zlefin]

Well, goblins (and the like) need to live somewhere.
So I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that every so often they do move into ancient ruins or caves, lured by the proximity of those spots to inhabited/traveled places they themselves can raid and loot.
But, yea, less lucky adventurers definitely play a major role in repopulating dungeons with loot.

but future adventurers should've also already stripped away all that loot.
mostly dungeons just shouldn't have loot at all, unless they're actively occupied, and then it's just the loot of their occupiers.
it is true that ancient ruins/caves will get people moving into them alot, but they're not notably likely to be raiders unless the area is too poor for farming.
just squatters/farmers will move in if noone else is present.
as a rule, nothing that serves as shelter will stay empty if the surrounding area has food in it.

also, the ruins tend to get stripped VERY thoroughly for loot; including the building materials at times, taken for other construction elsewhere (depending on feasibility, it's still easier than quarrying new stone after all). remember, after adventurers go through and then their direct followers, poor homeless scavengers will take anything they can, and their standards for "worth taking" are pretty low.

[Tamior]

but future adventurers should've also already stripped away all that loot.
They stripped some loot, then got greedy, moved DEEPER into the dungeon and got killed there with all the "stripped" loot + whatever they were carrying to begin with.
Pretty consistent way to get the dungeons re-populated with loot (as long as things that kill them aren't intelligent enough to take the loot away).


mostly dungeons just shouldn't have loot at all, unless they're actively occupied, and then it's just the loot of their occupiers.
Does having animals (and the like) count as "actively occupied"?


it is true that ancient ruins/caves will get people moving into them alot, but they're not notably likely to be raiders unless the area is too poor for farming.
just squatters/farmers will move in if noone else is present.
as a rule, nothing that serves as shelter will stay empty if the surrounding area has food in it.
Yes, but as long as there is something deadly inside, loot will start to accumulate.



also, the ruins tend to get stripped VERY thoroughly for loot; including the building materials at times, taken for other construction elsewhere (depending on feasibility, it's still easier than quarrying new stone after all). remember, after adventurers go through and then their direct followers, poor homeless scavengers will take anything they can, and their standards for "worth taking" are pretty low.
Really depends on where those ruins are.
If they are 3+ days of dedicated traveling over wilderness away from nearest inhabited spot, I really doubt that those with low enough standards for what's "worth taking" will make it there.

[King of Nowhere]

Well, goblins (and the like) need to live somewhere.
So I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that every so often they do move into ancient ruins or caves, lured by the proximity of those spots to inhabited/traveled places they themselves can raid and loot.
But, yea, less lucky adventurers definitely play a major role in repopulating dungeons with loot.

well, your average goblin tribe doesn't have much lootable. unless they manage to become successful looters themselves, which may happen sometimes


but future adventurers should've also already stripped away all that loot.

Ah, wannabe adventurers get back loot all the time, but they also leave down loot all the time, so it reaches an equilibrium state.
Assume, for example, that for every 10 adventuring groups going on a dungeon crawl, one dies and drops loot. Start with ten dungeons empty; ten parties will explore, one will leave loot inside. now there is one dungeon with loot. Start with two dungeons with treasure. Those two are going to be raided, and one dungeon is getting treasure from the loser group, so again you get one dungeon with loot in the end. if the group that dies was in one of the dungeons with loot, then you get a dungeon with extra loot.
Anyway, as long as somebody dies in a dungeon, there is going to be some dungeon with treasure. And enough stories of people finding treasure in dungeons to lure more young hotheads to try adventuring

[Tamior]

well, your average goblin tribe doesn't have much lootable. unless they manage to become successful looters themselves, which may happen sometimes

Even with just the equipment being worth ~10gp per goblin + extra ~10gp in camp, it's really not that bad. A goblin a week per character is still about 200-300% of what they can make as a low-level artisan.

[zlefin]

the ruin issue is getting a bit off-topic I think; I could provide some rebuttals if you're really interested, otherwise I'd just stick to the basic point on that tangent and go back to the hireling prices. (though really it's all part of the same core issue we all know: dnd economics don't hold up to scrutiny)

[Tamior]

the ruin issue is getting a bit off-topic I think; I could provide some rebuttals if you're really interested,
Sure, why not.


otherwise I'd just stick to the basic point on that tangent and go back to the hireling prices. (though really it's all part of the same core issue we all know: dnd economics don't hold up to scrutiny)
Eh, I'm just mostly surprised that the numbers don't drift over different revisions of the system if they are clearly underpriced.

Then again, I guess if you go with "only 1 dungeon in 10 actually has loot" hiring mercs might actually become somewhat noticeable on PC's budget.

[Elricaltovilla]

Eh, I'm just mostly surprised that the numbers don't drift over different revisions of the system if they are clearly underpriced.


That would require someone to bother looking at the pricing on mercs, and care enough to bother fixing it. If you spend more than 5 minutes reading the rules for any of these games it should be obvious how little the dev team concerned themselves with much of this. It just wasn't a priority or a concern before 3.5 and the Advent of internet forums full of people to complain about these inadequacies.

[zlefin]

They stripped some loot, then got greedy, moved DEEPER into the dungeon and got killed there with all the "stripped" loot + whatever they were carrying to begin with.
Pretty consistent way to get the dungeons re-populated with loot (as long as things that kill them aren't intelligent enough to take the loot away).


Does having animals (and the like) count as "actively occupied"?


Yes, but as long as there is something deadly inside, loot will start to accumulate.


Really depends on where those ruins are.
If they are 3+ days of dedicated traveling over wilderness away from nearest inhabited spot, I really doubt that those with low enough standards for what's "worth taking" will make it there.

since you asked for rebuttals on the ruins topic:
I don't think that would truly repopulate loot, as you'd see a mix of people just taking what they can/run which would also deplete the supply. and if there was ever an actual decent stash, a larger force would likely come to claim it, except for the rare dungeon populated by something truly dangerous. and people learn to be skittish and run away a lot in dangerous situations, so a total party wipe isn't that likely, and survivors would provide some info to help identify the threat/ensure future groups are suitably equipped.

I wasn't talking about animals when I said actively occupied; that was unclear of me. but for any animal to hold the cave they'd have to be tough enough to displace the humanoids who wanted it (if any).

while dribs and drabs of loot may accumulate, the total amount of loot is likely to remain quite small and not worthwhile; as lots of gear may be damaged, and kills are done elsewhere, so it depends on whether the remains are dragged for future meals and there wasn't too much loss of gear.

If the ruins were 3+ days away, why were they built in the first place? that's too far away for something. and if they were built long ago, when things were different, then they would've been stripped back then when they were still close to something.
also, if they're 3 days away, then that would have to mean there's something that kills humanoids reliably enough to keep that buffer zone in place (or the terrain is inhospitable).


on nowere's examples; the problem is if the rate of return is so poor that 1/10 die, and most find nothing, that's too low a rate to sustain. and people foolish enough to try anyways aren't likely to have goods of value to be looted from their corpses (especially since damage/decay could render many of them ill-usable). mostly though, it's just a poor rate of return on investment; and while an occasional idiot might go off and die, mostly these things are done because the average return on investment is good enough to at least be passable for a squalid lifestyle.


hmm, overall this felt like a pretty poor rebuttal, I'm losing the argument I think.

[Tamior]

since you asked for rebuttals on the ruins topic:
I don't think that would truly repopulate loot, as you'd see a mix of people just taking what they can/run which would also deplete the supply. and if there was ever an actual decent stash, a larger force would likely come to claim it, except for the rare dungeon populated by something truly dangerous. and people learn to be skittish and run away a lot in dangerous situations, so a total party wipe isn't that likely, and survivors would provide some info to help identify the threat/ensure future groups are suitably equipped.
D&D has plenty of stuff like monstrous spiders that can and will make a nest deep in the "dungeon", lay down traps, and then drag the bodies even deeper into the dungeon, likely with most of the loot still on them.
"Running away" in a dangerous situation is only an option if you can actually run, and that's a bit of an issue when you are being webbed by spiders.

Sure, not ALL dungeons will work like that, but some of them will, and loot will accumulate there (until a competent enough group clears it, which is what the PC are, potentially). (You can replace spiders with whatever you want, as long as it's a capable ambush predator.)


I wasn't talking about animals when I said actively occupied; that was unclear of me. but for any animal to hold the cave they'd have to be tough enough to displace the humanoids who wanted it (if any).
Luckily, D&D has plenty of "animals" like that.



while dribs and drabs of loot may accumulate, the total amount of loot is likely to remain quite small and not worthwhile; as lots of gear may be damaged, and kills are done elsewhere, so it depends on whether the remains are dragged for future meals and there wasn't too much loss of gear.
Well, yes, most dungeons ARE empty. But some of them have the right combination of animals and unlucky previous scavengers to actually accumulate some good stuff.



If the ruins were 3+ days away, why were they built in the first place? that's too far away for something. and if they were built long ago, when things were different, then they would've been stripped back then when they were still close to something.
also, if they're 3 days away, then that would have to mean there's something that kills humanoids reliably enough to keep that buffer zone in place (or the terrain is inhospitable).

Humanoids are not at the top of the food chain in fantasy worlds, really. Plenty of thing in the wilderness that keep the wilderness... wild. As for why ruins are there in the first place, well, plenty of reasons, really. Some wizard wanted a dungeon away from prying eyes, or maybe some resource was being mined there and got depleted, or maybe the place was abounded for a reason pertaining to aggressive local fauna or some magical "event", etc, etc. And there are plenty of examples even IRL when disassembling an installation is not economically viable.



on nowere's examples; the problem is if the rate of return is so poor that 1/10 die, and most find nothing, that's too low a rate to sustain. and people foolish enough to try anyways aren't likely to have goods of value to be looted from their corpses (especially since damage/decay could render many of them ill-usable). mostly though, it's just a poor rate of return on investment; and while an occasional idiot might go off and die, mostly these things are done because the average return on investment is good enough to at least be passable for a squalid lifestyle.
Survivorship bias at it's finest, really. Would-be adventurers mostly hear about the successful predecessors.

[King of Nowhere]

(though really it's all part of the same core issue we all know: dnd economics don't hold up to scrutiny)

all of d&d doesn't hold to close scrutiny, because it's virtually impossible to make something that does. Individual pieces hold to close scrutiny. when they interact with each other, their interactions don't hold.
In the given example, the pay of mercenaries holds compared to the pay of other common people. the loot of adventurers hold when compared to the prices of magical gear. it's when you compare across the board that you get inconsistencies. martial classes are balanced with each other, and spells are balanced with each other, but throw in high level martials and casters and balance breaks.
And that, as I said, is practically unavoidable. You can make a self-consistent piece, but when you make it interact with all the pieces that are there, there's got to be something that clashes

[Tamior]

Eh, having woefully underpriced (from PC's perspective) things in core rules is really something you CAN balance across the board, if that's your goal.

[HouseRules]

all of d&d doesn't hold to close scrutiny, because it's virtually impossible to make something that does. Individual pieces hold to close scrutiny. when they interact with each other, their interactions don't hold.
In the given example, the pay of mercenaries holds compared to the pay of other common people. the loot of adventurers hold when compared to the prices of magical gear. it's when you compare across the board that you get inconsistencies. martial classes are balanced with each other, and spells are balanced with each other, but throw in high level martials and casters and balance breaks.
And that, as I said, is practically unavoidable. You can make a self-consistent piece, but when you make it interact with all the pieces that are there, there's got to be something that clashes

Just like scientific theories. They only need to be proven self-contained to hold no false for those theories to be true.

[Endarire]

The prices are balanced for the rule author's game.

[icefractal]

They are dirt cheap, but it's usually not much of an issue. For one thing, the effectiveness of standard mercs falls off sharply as the party goes up in level. Beyond the first few levels they're not really OP. And whether they even get used at all depends on the type of campaign.

When that pricing is extended to higher-level mercenaries, it does get kinda OP. War Trolls for, IIRC, 100/day? Which can be paid in the form of weapons and armor, so that +1 greataxe that nobody wanted = 23 days. That's a huge bargain, which remains effective until very high levels.

[HouseRules]

It is common to scale by level. 3 * level sp per day for Trained Hirelings/Mercenary that do not fight. level gp per day for those that do fight, but they take half loot and half experience.

[Tamior]

It is common to scale by level. 3 * level sp per day for Trained Hirelings/Mercenary that do not fight. level gp per day for those that do fight, but they take half loot and half experience.
RAW are pretty clear that mercs don't get experience. Just saying.

As for "effectiveness of standard mercs falls off sharply as the party goes up in level", the problem is, at levels above 7-ish the game is already basically getting dysfunctional (if we go by RAW) since shenanigans just start to pour from every corner (powerful divinations, polymorh, SoL AOE spells, etc, etc). Basically, you don't need mercs at that point to break the balance.

After some contemplation, I really think the best way to handle mercs is to go with "if you bring mercs to the juicy dungeon, mercs reveal the location of the dungeon to high level adventurers that complete it within a few minutes and you have to go look for a new dungeon" approach.

[icefractal]

RAW are pretty clear that mercs don't get experience. Just saying.The fact that they don't get it doesn't mean the PCs still get the full amount. If the PCs were to send the merc army in and stay outside, I doubt anyone would give them XP. Personally, I wouldn't do an even split, but I would do a proportional split (every CR X of mercs gets a share, where X is the PCs' level).

[Segev]

The fact that they don't get it doesn't mean the PCs still get the full amount. If the PCs were to send the merc army in and stay outside, I doubt anyone would give them XP. Personally, I wouldn't do an even split, but I would do a proportional split (every CR X of mercs gets a share, where X is the PCs' level).

If nothing else, the added forces on the PCs' side would be diminishing the effective CR of the encounter.

Mercenaries and the like are meant for hiring on expedition-style dungeon-crawling to do things like stand guard overnight (so you don't need a watch rotation of your own), handle the large number of goblins or kobolds in a raid (so the PCs can focus on the quirky miniboss squad), and to guard and maintain basecamp while the PCs delve the dungeon. Ideally, the mercenaries can be trusted not to run off with the loot, but if they can't, at least they can be trusted not to run off without it, and thus will stay to guard the camp and supplies while the PCs take the loot in and out of the dungeon with them.

Hirelings serve a similar purpose: servants to maintain, set up, and tear down camp, as well as to help haul goods or steer pack animals or drive carts.

[zlefin]

RAW are pretty clear that mercs don't get experience. Just saying.

As for "effectiveness of standard mercs falls off sharply as the party goes up in level", the problem is, at levels above 7-ish the game is already basically getting dysfunctional (if we go by RAW) since shenanigans just start to pour from every corner (powerful divinations, polymorh, SoL AOE spells, etc, etc). Basically, you don't need mercs at that point to break the balance.

After some contemplation, I really think the best way to handle mercs is to go with "if you bring mercs to the juicy dungeon, mercs reveal the location of the dungeon to high level adventurers that complete it within a few minutes and you have to go look for a new dungeon" approach.

that sounds a bit too weird for a solution.
I think the best way to handle it is: "mercs won't go into dungeons, that exceeds the danger level they're willing to work for"
with the second best way being "mercs want a share (partial at least) of the treasure plus some good guarantees and extra high pay for going into a dungeon"

[Tamior]

If nothing else, the added forces on the PCs' side would be diminishing the effective CR of the encounter.
Do mounts also count for diminishing the effective CR of the encounter? Do pet animals? Do permanent summons/constructs?



Mercenaries and the like are meant for hiring on expedition-style dungeon-crawling to do things like stand guard overnight (so you don't need a watch rotation of your own), handle the large number of goblins or kobolds in a raid (so the PCs can focus on the quirky miniboss squad), and to guard and maintain basecamp while the PCs delve the dungeon. Ideally, the mercenaries can be trusted not to run off with the loot, but if they can't, at least they can be trusted not to run off without it, and thus will stay to guard the camp and supplies while the PCs take the loot in and out of the dungeon with them.

Hirelings serve a similar purpose: servants to maintain, set up, and tear down camp, as well as to help haul goods or steer pack animals or drive carts.
How exactly are PC's supposed to know which part of the raid is the "boss" part beforehand? For all that they know, large number of goblins might be THE raid...
Same for dungeon, it's not like dungeons tend to have a line that says "only PC's are allowed beyond this point".

[Gullintanni]

If nothing else, the added forces on the PCs' side would be diminishing the effective CR of the encounter.

Mercenaries and the like are meant for hiring on expedition-style dungeon-crawling to do things like stand guard overnight (so you don't need a watch rotation of your own), handle the large number of goblins or kobolds in a raid (so the PCs can focus on the quirky miniboss squad), and to guard and maintain basecamp while the PCs delve the dungeon. Ideally, the mercenaries can be trusted not to run off with the loot, but if they can't, at least they can be trusted not to run off without it, and thus will stay to guard the camp and supplies while the PCs take the loot in and out of the dungeon with them.

Hirelings serve a similar purpose: servants to maintain, set up, and tear down camp, as well as to help haul goods or steer pack animals or drive carts.

I don't necessarily agree. PC WBL is accounted for in the calculation of CR. If the PC uses WBL to purchase a wand of Cure Light Wounds, encounter CR remains the same. If they use the same WBL to hire 750 mercenaries for a day, CR should stay the same by RAW (although this would be both a stupid use of wealth and an abuse of the hireling rules IMHO).

How a PC uses their wealth does not impact the CR of an encounter.

That said, not all uses off WBL will be equally effective, to the point that some uses of PC wealth will be outright gamebreaking relative to other uses of wealth. D&D is far from perfect or internally consistent.

[unseenmage]

If nothing else, the added forces on the PCs' side would be diminishing the effective CR of the encounter.

...
I would say this depends greatly on how many character resources it takes to acquire said forces.

Summons and companion creatures are class abilities. Reducing CR for summoning good creatures seems wrong.

Leadership similarly has it's own rules for penalizing bringing along its granted minions.

Using charm or domination magic the day of the adventure could limit spell access later in the day.
But using said magics intelligently sooner probably shouldn't be penalized either, should it?



More to the point of the OP, it's up to the GM to make acquiring mercenaries interesting enough, cost an appropriate amount of resources, and rewarding enough for the cost.

Sure walking down to the NPC mega mart and buying up some lightly used fighters probably shouldn't net more xp for such a paltry investment.

Similarly if they were having a sale on low level wizards that day and the NPC, provided by the GM, trivialized an encounter, then sure it's fair I suppose to give less xp.
But it'd be equally fair if the GM said rocks fall all the monsters die.

Acquiring heroic NPCs should probably require a greater investment of resources, both in game and IRL roleplaying, than the implied NPC mega mart scenario.
IIRC both the DMG and the Arms and Equipment Guide say as much somewhere. Though I could definitely be misremembering, has been a great while since I read them in depth.

[Tamior]

that sounds a bit too weird for a solution.
Exactly why? It makes perfect sense that "easy" dungeons have not been looted dry by over-leveled adventurers exactly because they don't know about those dungeons.


I think the best way to handle it is: "mercs won't go into dungeons, that exceeds the danger level they're willing to work for"
Why even hire them if they refuse to go into the actual fight? Also, RAW they DO go even into suicidal fights, they just ask for up to 3PP/day for doing so.
And it also makes one wonder exactly where the "dungeon" begins. Would hirelings go into it after you've cleaned it (to help get out the loot)? How do they know if it's cleaned yet?


with the second best way being "mercs want a share (partial at least) of the treasure plus some good guarantees and extra high pay for going into a dungeon"
Having twice the firepower for -25% (or -33%, or even -50%) to loot is still overpowered as hell. Plus, smart PC's will make sure mercs are only aware of the more obvious treasures.

[Tamior]

More to the point of the OP, it's up to the GM to make acquiring mercenaries interesting enough, cost an appropriate amount of resources, and rewarding enough for the cost.
While 100% true, the same is also true about equipment. And yet I wouldn't say any equipment category is off from where it should be cost-wise by a factor of 10X+

[unseenmage]

While 100% true, the same is also true about equipment. And yet I wouldn't say any equipment category is off from where it should be cost-wise by a factor of 10X+

But it's rare in my experience that you need to talk to your equipment a d console its family and struggle with a bad reputation if you risk it unnecessarily.

[Tamior]

But it's rare in my experience that you need to talk to your equipment a d console its family and struggle with a bad reputation if you risk it unnecessarily.
I mean, Thrallherds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/thrallherd.htm) are still a thing by RAW. Pretty sure average PC would have to go a looong way abusing their mercs to sink below that.

[Efrate]

In pathfinder at least its level of merc squared times how dangerous it is per day, so while teneble it does gobble wbl a bit if you take your time clearing areas. It is still a great investment especially at level 1 and 2. And you usually pay a week or a month in advance iirc. And hey free bodies for your necromancer friend, and you can loot any pay or treasure of their corpses.