Bringing the Thrallherd to 5e as a wizard subclass.

[Drache64]

Okay, what do you guys think of running the Thrallherd (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/thrallherd.htm) as simply an enchantment wizard but for the "Thrallherd" portion just letting the DM run that as he wills?

Essentially the "Thrallherd" plays as normal, and the DM roleplays the call of the Thrallherd as a story effect for the player?

Do you think players who want to be a Thrallherd would be satisfied with this?

((For that "Psionic" feel the player can just use the spell point Variant))

[NorthernPhoenix]

Anything that let's you control a lot of extra pieces are already the most problematic things in 5e. I don't think importing a character dedicated to it is a good idea.

If you could find a way for it to not clog up fights, i could see it being doable.

[Edea]

No.

They already tried to nerf the crap out of minionmancy and it's still the most problematic playstyle in the game (see the recent thread on here about the create undead warlock using his ghouls for shenanigans and pissing off the rest of the table).

An enemy/NPC might be a 'thrallherd', but for PCs in 5e that's dead-on-arrival. Closest thing you could do is a charming ability on a single target that required your concentration, and that's easy enough to just make a spell; you don't need a whole sub-class for it.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah, sorry but Thrallherds and Necrogenerals have been sidelined until a later edition.

Even just being able to control that many allies out of combat gets broken quickly in 5E.

[Drache64]

Anything that let's you control a lot of extra pieces are already the most problematic things in 5e.

If you could find a way for it to not clog up fights, i could see it being doable.


No.

They already tried to nerf the crap out of minionmancy and it's still the most problematic playstyle in the game


Yeah, sorry but Thrallherds and Necrogenerals have been sidelined until a later edition.

Even just being able to control that many allies out of combat gets broken quickly in 5E.

So I made this post for feedback and while I appreciate the responses I have to point out that all of you unanimously missed a major part of what I said that kind of invalidated all your responses.


but for the "Thrallherd" portion just letting the DM run that as he wills?

Essentially the "Thrallherd" plays as normal, and the DM roleplays the call of the Thrallherd as a story effect for the player?


So this isn't about "minionmancy" (I like that term). As it gives the player no mechanics for minions.

A warlock with Flock of familiars or a Necromancer with raise dead would have way more minions.

This idea is that the Enchantment Wizard already gives the players the personal feel of a Thrallherd, while the DM runs his minions off screen for outside of combat management.

Even when I played a Thrallherd in 3.5 I never actually used minions in combat, they ran my camp that became a castle that became a kingdom.

[OldTrees1]

So I made this post for feedback and while I appreciate the responses I have to point out that all of you unanimously missed a major part of what I said that kind of invalidated all your responses.

This idea is that the Enchantment Wizard already gives the players the personal feel of a Thrallherd, while the DM runs his minions off screen for outside of combat management.

Even when I played a Thrallherd in 3.5 I never actually used minions in combat, they ran my camp that became a castle that became a kingdom.

This is what I addressed specifically. In 3.5 I played a Necromancer that was building a kingdom with their undead (PS what we both did in 3.5 is still minionmancy). 5E would consider that broken. So my necromancer character is skipping 5E. Out of combat, even relegated to the background, minionmancy is still too strong for 5E.

Now, it being broken and overpowered can be fine. I did not dare it, but ...

[Edea]

Again, no.

If I'm the DM, I'm not running your pets. It's just as disruptive to the game as if you were running them yourself; in fact it's worse, since at least if it's on the player to control them and they're distracted I can just skip their damn turn, but if I'm the one running them then the whole game gets jammed up for everybody.

Foot is down, absolutely not.

[OldTrees1]

To be clear, as someone that liked and played a Thrallherd (I enjoyed both Thrallherd and Dread Necromancers), and did similar background out of combat minionmancy, I can say the Thrallherd player would be satisfied with it.

BUT

In 5E the Thrallherd player might also be uncomfortable with how overpowered and broken it is in 5E. So they might be satisfied but simultaneously unwilling.

[Drache64]

Again, no.

If I'm the DM, I'm not running your pets. It's just as disruptive to the game as if you were running them yourself; in fact it's worse, since at least if it's on the player to control them and they're distracted I can just skip their damn turn, but if I'm the one running them then the whole game gets jammed up for everybody.

Foot is down, absolutely not.

This post is about porting something from 3.5 to 5e your gripe with the Thrallherd isn't mechanics based, it's DM style. Looks like even in 3.5 you'd refuse a Thrallherd. I can respect that but it kind of makes your feedback moot for the purpose of this thread.


This is what I addressed specifically. In 3.5 I played a Necromancer that was building a kingdom with their undead (PS what we both did in 3.5 is still minionmancy). 5E would consider that broken. So my necromancer character is skipping 5E. Out of combat, even relegated to the background, minionmancy is still too strong for 5E.

Now, it being broken and overpowered can be fine. I did not dare it, but ...


To be clear, as someone that liked and played a Thrallherd (I enjoyed both Thrallherd and Dread Necromancers), and did similar background out of combat minionmancy, I can say the Thrallherd player would be satisfied with it.

BUT

In 5E the Thrallherd player might also be uncomfortable with how overpowered and broken it is in 5E. So they might be satisfied but simultaneously unwilling.

To you guys it's only broken in a world if a DM runs it that way. It being a story effect means the DM is 100% in control. I mostly DM but I have enjoyed being a player as well. When I DM I can easily say the control of the Thrallherd is limited in how many followers he has and how productive they actually are.

But perhaps I am missing something, what makes 5e different than 3.5? Why is it broken in this edition?

[Unoriginal]

But perhaps I am missing something, what makes 5e different than 3.5? Why is it broken in this edition?

Before I answer that, may I ask you to do one precision, please?

What exactly does "a Thrallherd but the DM is in control" means, to you?

As in, how would you describe the concept to a player who has never played D&D before?

[OldTrees1]

To you guys it's only broken in a world if a DM runs it that way. It being a story effect means the DM is 100% in control. I mostly DM but I have enjoyed being a player as well. When I DM I can easily say the control of the Thrallherd is limited in how many followers he has and how productive they actually are.

But perhaps I am missing something, what makes 5e different than 3.5? Why is it broken in this edition?

It will be a tight line to walk where you grant them a large enough following, of normal people (with normal levels of competency), such that the player feels like a Thrallherd, and don't run into them being too productive / powerful.

I would not describe it as "missing something". Optimistic vs Pessimistic maybe?

Lots of areas of 5E use bounded accuracy to cap the potential of the high level individual under the potential of the mob of normals. The thrallherd is being granted a mob of normals, which will make them more effective at whatever you allow the mob to work on. Unless you have overhauled the system, I expect the Thrallherd to be able to outshine any PC they want to in any field you let the thralls work. For example the cult might hit a DC 35 with the same consistency as a PC hits DC 25.

However, maybe that is okay? In a vacuum it would be a problem, hence my pessimism. But you have extra insight into the specifics of your group, so if you were DMing ... ? I do expect it to be dangerous ground and be overpowered, but your group might only see the positives.

[Drache64]

It will be a tight line to walk where you grant them a large enough following, of normal people (with normal levels of competency), such that the player feels like a Thrallherd, and don't run into them being too productive / powerful.

I would not describe it as "missing something". Optimistic vs Pessimistic maybe?

Lots of areas of 5E use bounded accuracy to cap the potential of the high level individual under the potential of the mob of normals. The thrallherd is being granted a mob of normals, which will make them more effective at whatever you allow the mob to work on. Unless you have overhauled the system, I expect the Thrallherd to be able to outshine any PC they want to in any field you let the thralls work. For example the cult might hit a DC 35 with the same consistency as a PC hits DC 25.

However, maybe that is okay? In a vacuum it would be a problem, hence my pessimism. But you have extra insight into the specifics of your group, so if you were DMing ... ? I do expect it to be dangerous ground and be overpowered, but your group might only see the positives.

I would ask you what the difference is of a player with 1000gp and utilizing the "services and hirelings" section of the PHB.



Before I answer that, may I ask you to do one precision, please?

What exactly does "a Thrallherd but the DM is in control" means, to you?

As in, how would you describe the concept to a player who has never played D&D before?

If I were to write up a subclass description I'd write:

"A thrallherd sends out a subtle psychic call for servants, and that call is answered. Those who answer a thrallherd’s call are not referred to as cohorts and followers, but rather as thralls and believers, respectively. They do not appear because they admire the character and want to serve her, but because a hidden psychic resonance connects the thrallherd and her servants.

The number of believers of various levels a thrallherd can attract are up to the DM's discretion as well as their usefulness.

See the "services and hirelings" section of the players handbook. Your DM determines which of these services your character can receive for free based on your followers."

But I could get even more mechanical and promise the player a certain gold amount of these services for free based on level.

[Amnestic]

I would ask you what the difference is of a player with 1000gp and utilizing the "services and hirelings" section of the PHB.



Hirelings stop taking the money when you throw them into lethal situations over and over again without any care for their survival. You can't spend your gold if you're dead.

Enchanted/'thralled'/conjured minions don't care so much.

If your intention is to codify non-combat followers into class features, then...sure, okay. I can see that. At least one background does that albeit on a small scale and you can certainly hire people with gold. Hell, I've added that sort of semi-ribbon to one of my own. It's the sort of thing that used to be expected of mid-to-high level characters either way - strongholds etc.

If your intention is to have the thralls run around the battlefield with you, then sorry but no hard pass. There's a number of reasons for why but bounded accuracy is the shortest version, but turn length is another big issue.

[Drache64]

Hirelings stop taking the money when you throw them into lethal situations over and over again without any care for their survival. You can't spend your gold if you're dead.

Enchanted/'thralled'/conjured minions don't care so much.

If your intention is to codify non-combat followers into class features, then...sure, okay. I can see that. At least one background does that albeit on a small scale and you can certainly hire people with gold. Hell, I've added that sort of semi-ribbon to one of my own. It's the sort of thing that used to be expected of mid-to-high level characters either way - strongholds etc.

If your intention is to have the thralls run around the battlefield with you, then sorry but no hard pass. There's a number of reasons for why but bounded accuracy is the shortest version, but turn length is another big issue.

If a Thrallherd wanted to bring an army of thralls to bear it would be no different than a player of any other class trying to hire a mercenary army. The rules support it, most players have the means past any particular level, but it remains up to the DM discretion if it's possible.

That's the intention of running ability as DM story elements.

[Amnestic]

If a Thrallherd wanted to bring an army of thralls to bear it would be no different than a player of any other class trying to hire a mercenary army. The rules support it, most players have the means past any particular level, but it remains up to the DM discretion if it's possible.

I feel like this shouldn't need to be stated outright but "combat" and "non-combat" in this instance were specifically related for engagements the player is also taking part in on a micro scale. People you're rolling initiative for.

If you want to have a high level feature class feature that effectively gives you followers who aren't going to stand shoulder to shoulder with you when you're dungeoncrawling then people probably won't have much of an issue with it, but if so Thrallherd's probably a poor choice for it because of the naming conventions around it.


Those who answer a thrallherd’s call are not referred to as cohorts and followers, but rather as thralls and believers, respectively. They do not appear because they admire the character and want to serve her, but because a hidden psychic resonance connects the thrallherd and her servants.

There's a distinction drawn, even if not mechanically born out and only linguistically, between a "cohort" (an NPC who makes judgements to follow you be it for money, ideals or whatever) and a "thrall" (who makes no choice and is essentially forced into it). They're referred to as "mentally pliable" later in the description. That difference makes it difficult for a DM to say "no, they won't do this". A mercenary army won't jump into a river to form a bridge to stop you getting your feet wet. Will a bunch of mentally pliable thralls? That's the difference, and it's key to how the DM runs them, because suddenly they're close to puppet undead in effect.

And, if we're meant to take the ideas from your link as something to be ported over, it specifically calls out levels for them. There's little point to giving thralls levels unless they're going to be doing the fight fight alongside you, which falls very quickly into minionmancy problems detailed earlier. And if they're not meant to fight next to you, you have to kind of explain why a bunch of mindslaves won't do that. For mercenaries, there's an obvious reason: the stuff you're doing is way out of their paygrade, and they won't throw themselves into a suicide mission. They won't try to fight the ancient red dragon and its army of fire elementals. A DM can say that pretty safely with NPCs, but less easily with mindslaves.

I think the initial response to your thread is born out of you not describing quite well enough what you're looking for out of a Thrallherd class. Would you be satisfied with the below? It's the description I used for one of my subclasses:


Known Far And Wide. Your own exploits rival, if not surpass that of your heroic patron. By reaching 14th level people across all the world know your name and sing your praises or fear your wrath. Bards write tales of your valour and power. Guilds and countries vie for your attention. You attract a following of loyal fans and retainers who will work to carry out your will. These operate similar to the Retainer feature from the noble background, carrying out mundane task but not putting themselves in harms way and leaving your service if endangered or abused.

Work with your DM to add relevant NPC contacts that might come about from being a world renowned figure worthy of note. These may take the form of new friends or new enemies.

Because that's probably not an issue. I don't think it is, at least. As you've said that could be replicated with gold. I still don't know, even after your posts, what exactly you see out of a 5e Thrallherd being played, which makes it difficult to judge if it would work or not, but I'm inclined to say 'no'.

[OldTrees1]

I would ask you what the difference is of a player with 1000gp and utilizing the "services and hirelings" section of the PHB.

Fair point. Hirelings are more powerful in 5E than in 3E if you can hire an entire guild and have each guild member be roughly as competent as the PCs could hope to be.

If your players have used the hireling rules in 5E, then Thrallherd should be just fine. The mob can hit DC 35s on demand. The Thrallherd would be effectively very rich (since thralls don't cost gold), but economic power grows exponentially and the mob can also do economic power.


Personally I have only allowed large numbers of hirelings when it was 3E with mechanics like Leadership, Undead Leadership, or Thrallherd. So I am less experienced in handling the PCs having that kind of power.

[Unoriginal]

I would ask you what the difference is of a player with 1000gp and utilizing the "services and hirelings" section of the PHB.




If I were to write up a subclass description I'd write:

"A thrallherd sends out a subtle psychic call for servants, and that call is answered. Those who answer a thrallherd’s call are not referred to as cohorts and followers, but rather as thralls and believers, respectively. They do not appear because they admire the character and want to serve her, but because a hidden psychic resonance connects the thrallherd and her servants.

The number of believers of various levels a thrallherd can attract are up to the DM's discretion as well as their usefulness.

See the "services and hirelings" section of the players handbook. Your DM determines which of these services your character can receive for free based on your followers."

But I could get even more mechanical and promise the player a certain gold amount of these services for free based on level.

But the thing about the Thrallherd is, while the DM determines the type of services you can get, the NPCs are not free to refuse their services, correct?



If a Thrallherd wanted to bring an army of thralls to bear it would be no different than a player of any other class trying to hire a mercenary army. The rules support it, most players have the means past any particular level, but it remains up to the DM discretion if it's possible.

That's the intention of running ability as DM story elements.

Incorrect. If you're hiring a mercenary army, you have the fact that they may ditch you if you're asking too much, or betray you.

It wouldn't be the case with the Thrallherd's army, unless the DM is ignoring what makes a Thrallherd a Thrallherd in the first place.




Fair point. Hirelings are more powerful in 5E than in 3E if you can hire an entire guild and have each guild member be roughly as competent as the PCs could hope to be.

If your players have used the hireling rules in 5E, then Thrallherd should be just fine. The mob can hit DC 35s on demand. The Thrallherd would be effectively very rich (since thralls don't cost gold), but economic power grows exponentially and the mob can also do economic power.

Untrue. Hirelings still have free wills. A Thrallherd could kill a dragon just by ordering their thralls to jump in the dragon's mouth until the stomach explodes.


Now, as an explanation of the part you were missing, Drache64:

In 3.X, ordinary people are effectively in the Do Not Matter category very quickly, which is why thralls of importance get class levels.

In 5e, it is an oft-joked but true fact that 100 commoners armed with crossbows could in fact kill most of the Monster Manual, if we go strictly by the math. To the point it was a minor meme back in the days:

https://1d4chan.org/images/2/2f/HectoPeasant2.jpg


BUT for them to be able to do that, the commoners would need perfect discipline so 100 persons can position themselves at the right distance from the target, a complete lack of fear so they don't break ranks when deads & devils charge at them, and have them all follow the decision-maker's orders without hesitation or variation.

In other words, not something that can happen outside of white room theorycrafting.

Enters the Thrallherd, who can in fact have access to fearless, perfectly disciplined, perfectly obedient people in the required numbers to tear almost anything to shred thanks to their mind control capacities.

[Drache64]

But the thing about the Thrallherd is, while the DM determines the type of services you can get, the NPCs are not free to refuse their services, correct?

Enters the Thrallherd, who can in fact have access to fearless, perfectly disciplined, perfectly obedient people in the required numbers to tear almost anything to shred thanks to their mind control capacities.

It seems like you can only imagine the type of DM who could not make this work.

You've envisioned someone with at least 100 thralls and with a very strict interpretation of the type of mind control.

A thrall can be someone who's enchanted but not mindless. Their servitude, while compelled, could range anywhere from friends, to suggestion, to dominate (I'm referencing spells). Your arguments are only valid in a very specific interpretation of the rules which as stated were "up to the DM".

Personally I'd give the player no more than 5 followers by level 5, no more than 20 by level 10, no more than 50 by level 15, and no more than 100 by level 19. After 20 I'd let them go crazy but that's what that level is all about IMO.

So to your point, yes a DM can be a very bad DM and use "DMs discretion" to make this terrible. There are many solutions where this does work.


The mob can hit DC 35s on demand. The Thrallherd would be effectively very rich (since thralls don't cost gold), but economic power grows exponentially and the mob can also do economic power


Again, only if the DM wants to run that type of Campaign. Otherwise it can go like this.

Thrallherd: I command my thralls to grab weapons and armor and go fight the dragon with me.

DM: okay, you have 30 thralls, but only 15 look fighting fit (rest are aged men, sickly beggars, or frail women) How many swords and armor do you have in your inventory?

Thrallherd: uh... Not really any, I'll go to town and buy a bunch if weapons and armor.

DM: Oof, an order that size is going to take a few months to fulfill. He doesn't sell enough gear to fit a band of mercenaries.

Thrallherd: well fine, I'll go to every shop and buy all the weapons and armor that's available in the town.

DM: okay that will cost you most your money. When half or all of your thralls die on the dragons first breath. How will you carry all the items back?

Thrallherd: forget the dragon, I'll start a business in town having my thralls sell goods.

DM: great! Much better idea! What items will they make?

Thrallherd: hmm... Clothes!

DM: great! Only 3 know how to work a loom but with the right money and facility and time they can get your operation up in a month or so, provided you have the coin to purchase a facility and pay the taxes monthly...

[Tvtyrant]

I would use the followers in combat as a single creature "mob" so it avoids action economy problems, basically like a nice animal companion or summon. Then have the ability to cast a number of rituals a day gold free fluffed as your herd doing stuff for you. Like Locate Item is literally your guys spying, Comprehend Languages is your herd translating for you, Leomund's Hut is they make you a rest spot.

[Drache64]

I would use the followers in combat as a single creature "mob" so it avoids action economy problems, basically like a nice animal companion or summon. Then have the ability to cast a number of rituals a day gold free fluffed as your herd doing stuff for you. Like Locate Item is literally your guys spying, Comprehend Languages is your herd translating for you, Leomund's Hut is they make you a rest spot.

Up to the DM of course, but ideally these thralls would have around 5 HP and any decent Size AoE would kill all of them in combat.

Or the DM can let the player have an army, there's an infinite scale of freedom for the DM to run this any way that fits their campaign.

[Unoriginal]

It seems like you can only imagine the type of DM who could not make this work.

You've envisioned someone with at least 100 thralls and with a very strict interpretation of the type of mind control.

A thrall can be someone who's enchanted but not mindless. Their servitude, while compelled, could range anywhere from friends, to suggestion, to dominate (I'm referencing spells). Your arguments are only valid in a very specific interpretation of the rules which as stated were "up to the DM".

There is no rules to interprete. We're not even discussing an homebrew yet, we're discussing a concept.



So to your point, yes a DM can be a very bad DM and use "DMs discretion" to make this terrible. There are many solutions where this does work.

And your point seems to be "it's in the DM's hands, so the Thrallherd's player won't get an edge unless the DM wants it, so it's fine to play a Thrallherd".


Let me put it this way: you're playing a Thrallherd. You want a thrall to sacrifice their life as a distraction against the treasure's guardian while the group go steal the Cup of Curses from an evil altar. The thrall says "no".

As someone who wanted to play a Thrallherd, would you be satisfied with that outcome?



Again, only if the DM wants to run that type of Campaign. Otherwise it can go like this.

Thrallherd: I command my thralls to grab weapons and armor and go fight the dragon with me.

DM: okay, you have 30 thralls, but only 15 look fighting fit (rest are aged men, sickly beggars, or frail women) How many swords and armor do you have in your inventory?

Thrallherd: uh... Not really any, I'll go to town and buy a bunch if weapons and armor.

DM: Oof, an order that size is going to take a few months to fulfill. He doesn't sell enough gear to fit a band of mercenaries.

Thrallherd: well fine, I'll go to every shop and buy all the weapons and armor that's available in the town.

DM: okay that will cost you most your money. When half or all of your thralls die on the dragons first breath. How will you carry all the items back?

Thrallherd: forget the dragon, I'll start a business in town having my thralls sell goods.

DM: great! Much better idea! What items will they make?

Thrallherd: hmm... Clothes!

DM: great! Only 3 know how to work a loom but with the right money and facility and time they can get your operation up in a month or so, provided you have the coin to purchase a facility and pay the taxes monthly...

Three things:

a) That DM should really communicate better and explain from the start what they'd allow at their campaign, rather than just going "ooooh, it's going to be difficult" until the player arrives on the option they consider ok.

b) This example disregard the possibility that a player might not be happy with getting unpaid manual labor when they wanted pawns for dragon hunting

c)If your point is "as long as both the player and the DM are happy with the result, then everything is possible and won't cause any problem", you would be right... but that's true for any table-specific preference.

There's nothing wrong with a DM houseruling that all characters get one feat per level, either, and if the players like then it's great. But that doesn't mean such a thing will be appreciated by everyone, or that internet strangers giving their opinions when asked are only able to imagine a bad DM doing things badly.


More to the point, I ask this to you: what is the point of being a Thrallherd if you can't control your thralls to do what you want?

[Drache64]

c)If your point is "as long as both the player and the DM are happy with the result, then everything is possible and won't cause any problem", you would be right... but that's true for any table-specific preference.


This is your gold nugget right here. When approaching a concept and having a massive amount of room for interpretation and the only interpretation you can give is "it simply can't work" then it's a lack of imagination.



More to the point, I ask this to you: what is the point of being a Thrallherd if you can't control your thralls to do what you want?

Story. My 3.5 Thrallherd was a psion (a race that takes other races and prefects them) but his backstory was that he was an Orc shaman who loved his people. When the Elan abducted and perfected him he went back to his tribe and they rejected him as an Orc. Feeling enraged and spurned he classed into Thrallherd and began controlling his feebleminded clan. They went about their lives but worshipped him as King. If you know the 3.5 orc stat block you'll know an entire orc village is basically a training level for a single 5th level fighter. My character didn't gain any significant advantage, but it was the story I wanted to tell. When he used any psychic mind control ability it was really no different than playing a Telepath, in fact Thrallherd was a bad choice mechanically as it was much better to just stick straight Telepath, but many people play d&d for more than mathematical equations on character builds.


And of course all this should be discussed at session 0 but the previous example I gave was to show how a DM can limit this class. I, of course, am not suggesting this class exist to disappoint players and mismanage their expectations.

[Unoriginal]

This is your gold nugget right here. When approaching a concept and having a massive amount of room for interpretation and the only interpretation you can give is "it simply can't work" then it's a lack of imagination.

First, I must say I'd rather like it if you stopped insulting me.

Second, while a DM and a player can agree to make anything work, it doesn't mean the system makes it easy or enjoyable.

Third, if someone made a thread saying "Do you think people who want to play a Githyanki Raider would want to have a Red Dragon as a mount? The DM controls the dragon and they won't participate in fights unless the DM wants it, so there is no issue with having a Red Dragon as a mount", would you agree with the poster's position?



Story. My 3.5 Thrallherd was a psion (a race that takes other races and prefects them) but his backstory was that he was an Orc shaman who loved his people. When the Elan abducted and perfected him he went back to his tribe and they rejected him as an Orc. Feeling enraged and spurned he classed into Thrallherd and began controlling his feebleminded clan. They went about their lives but worshipped him as King. If you know the 3.5 orc stat block you'll know an entire orc village is basically a training level for a single 5th level fighter. My character didn't gain any significant advantage, but it was the story I wanted to tell. When he used any psychic mind control ability it was really no different than playing a Telepath, in fact Thrallherd was a bad choice mechanically as it was much better to just stick straight Telepath, but many people play d&d for more than mathematical equations on character builds.

Fair, it worked for you, and that probably wouldn't change much if you had the same thing in 5e. But what about the player whose story they want to tell is "everyone think I'm just the court jester but actually I am the one mind-controlling every important persons in the government"? Or simply "I am a demon hunter, a follower of Asmodeus, and using my mental powers I impose absolute obedience on the pawns who assist me in my task"?


(One of) your initial question(s) was, "Do you think players who want to be a Thrallherd would be satisfied with this?"

[OldTrees1]

Again, only if the DM wants to run that type of Campaign. Otherwise it can go like this.

Thrallherd: I command my thralls to grab weapons and armor and go fight the dragon with me.

I remember something about how this was not going to be for combat. Something about background out of combat utility.

I find myself confused, so I am going to back off rather than give confused advice. If you are the DM, then this idea will be overpowered, by maybe that is okay. If you are the Player, don't expect your DM to allow it.

[Drache64]

First, I must say I'd rather like it if you stopped insulting me.


Sorry if you felt insulted it really wasn't my intention.


I remember something about how this was not going to be for combat. Something about background out of combat utility.

I find myself confused, so I am going to back off rather than give confused advice. If you are the DM, then this idea will be overpowered, by maybe that is okay. If you are the Player, don't expect your DM to allow it.

Yeah the quote goes on to show the DM explaining why this doesn't work in combat, you just gotta read the full post.

Sorry you are confused.

[DeTess]

I could definitely see this working as a boon. It's really just 'you're the guildmaster of a small crafters guild' with a wizardy flavor.

As a subclass its problematic though, as it'll be very hard to balance against the other subclasses, especially since it can't provide any direct combat benefit.

Maybe you could make 'thrallherd' a high level feature of a general psionics/mind control subclass.

[micahaphone]

I never played 3.5, but this sounds kind of like the enchantment subclass for wizard but better. Like, a lot better. Hexblade compared to Undying better.

I'm reminded when I first played dnd and our table had honestly too many players. Many skill checks the newbie DM let everyone try. When you've got 8 people rolling, it doesn't matter if the rogue flubs their roll to check for traps, someone's gonna roll well. The D20 is swingy enough that with enough rolls anything is possible.
I hope you see where I'm going with this. As a DM, I'd be exasperated rolling many skill checks against myself. Or fitting a crowd into my narrative, always following attentively behind my party.

In this old crypt, there's ghouls ready to pop out of one of many ancient coffins, roaming ghosts might come from behind, and it's easy to get lost in these narrow winding tunnels.... unless you have a team of 5-20 mind altered friends who are just always behind you. Should I as a DM make predators take from this crowd of defenseless meat that's walking into their home? Do I pretend they don't exist until the wizard says "me and mine check for traps"? Either we have schroedinger's crowd of commoners or I feel like a jerk DM who takes away my player's subclass features.

Every DM decision now needs to accomodate 3-5 adventurers plus an entire camp trailing behind them. If you attack or separate the thralls, it's like killing a Beastmaster ranger's pet and telling them "there's no other animals for you to go out and bond with in this area".






And no, I've never had my players hire a retinue of followers. I don't think that'd even fit well with my campaigns. The closest has been hiring or recruiting one npc for additional help on a mission, especially to fill a gap in the party. Like a locksmith who specializes in magical doors when the party of a monk, paladin, and wizard were pulling a heist. One npc hanging in the back of combat is much easier to work in to the story than a crowd of enchanted people.

[Analytica]

I would allow it in campaigns where PCs having noble/royal titles would be OK; that similarly gives you influence offscreen in the larger world (and the Noble background gives you three noncombat minions). It would work similarly, I think.

[stack]

The issues with the power of leadership, thrallherd, and similar mechanics in 3.5 and PF kicked around in the back of my head for some time. As a result, I wrote an expansion for a Pathfinder third-party system. While the specific mechanics of that book are largely non-transferable to 5e, the general ideas of benefits a large group of non-combat servants could give may be useful for sparking further thoughts.

Leadership Sphere (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/leadership)

Look mainly at the caravan and follower material, not the cohort stuff, and try not to get hung up on specific subsystems and mechanics.

[Willie the Duck]

Sorry if you felt insulted it really wasn't my intention.
---
Yeah the quote goes on to show the DM explaining why this doesn't work in combat, you just gotta read the full post.
Sorry you are confused.
In one post, you try to apologize to one person for them feeling insulted, and then be unnecessarily condescending in your response to the next person. Even if you were right and they simply missed a vital part of the post, this is a great way to generate friction. If you want a non-contentious thread (you are looking for advice, right?), a rethink of strategy might be in order.


But perhaps I am missing something, what makes 5e different than 3.5? Why is it broken in this edition?
On a fundamental level, having a bunch of extra warm bodies (let's say with light crossbows) is significantly more game-changing in 5e than in 3e. This 1) makes the guy playing a fighter contribute relatively less than the spellcaster who also has a small army (also not a foregone conclusion in 5e), and 2) incentivizes a whole bunch of followers (complete with the increased combat time that entails) rather than one almost-PC-level follower.


If a Thrallherd wanted to bring an army of thralls to bear it would be no different than a player of any other class trying to hire a mercenary army. The rules support it, most players have the means past any particular level, but it remains up to the DM discretion if it's possible.
You are correct. This somewhat problematic tactic is already established in the game rules. That's how people know about the problems it presents. If someone were to ask how best to add ways to accomplish this thing, it seems reasonable that people point out the problems it might create.

Now, if you are simply trying to create a thematically/story-based thrallherd, then I think the answer is to simply give out a retinue of noncombat followers as a ribbon somewhere. Certain backgrounds and success rolls on certain checks (peruse XGtE, I think that is where they are) offer thing like happening to know a guy who _____ (can get you out of the city, get you certain services for a discount, etc.). Perhaps this ability can give you spellcasting mod per week number of minor favors like that.

Another option is to give the PC a permanent Unseen Servant effect, and at-will Prestidigitation, except that the effects are non-magical, and go away for the adventure if the PC is subjected to area-effect damage.