Character Creation

[Zhym]

But the whole group doesn't get a chance to decide whether it wants to share the risk; only the character who hires them does. It seems unfair for one player to get to unilaterally decide to to cut the entire group's XP gain by a third. If one player wants to trade his or her own character's XP gain for increased survival, that's the player's choice. But only the group as a whole should be able to choose to cut everyone's XP.

And when the henchmen in question are three thieves and an anti-paladin, I have doubts that they'd be helping the party as a whole (as opposed to individual who employs them) anyway. And the individual employer might not be safe, either. I mean, would you trust an anti-paladin not to turn on you the moment he has an advantage?

Which brings up another issue: who would voluntarily adventure with the daughter of a witch-queen, three skulking thieves, and an anti-paladin? If they ever turned on the rest of the party, they'd have even numbers! If I showed up on the first day of work and they told me, "Here's your co-worker Kim Jong Il and his team of three ninjas and Bob Hitler, Adolph's great grand-nephew," I'd be out of the door as quickly (but carefully!) as I could. Who would willingly travel with a group that seems as happy to stab you in the night as negotiate over who gets the good magic item?

Oh, and by the way, if henchmen get full 1/2 shares of XP instead of being split by PC, that group of cut-throats and killers (who, with the PC that hired them, would receive 40% of all group XP) gets stronger as the campaign goes on. It wouldn't be long before the gang of thieves and anti-paladin would be able to dictate terms to the party.

In short: you want me to give 1/3 of my xp to a bunch of evil killers who are as likely to stab me in my sleep as help me?

[Rodriguez]

Just a quick answer as I have to get up at 5 in the morning. I will reply in detail tomorrow.

The 3 thieves are not coming with my PC into the dungeon and so they wont cost anyone any xp.

[Zhym]

The 3 thieves are not coming with my PC into the dungeon and so they wont cost anyone any xp.

That assumes that the only xp we get will be in a dungeon. The campaign description made it sound like a lot of the adventuring will be in the wilderness.

[drpete]

While this argument against a group of backup people may make some sense, we are taking about a group sort of following a thief's treasure map, and aided by a magic using elven assassin... The same could be said for them... But they are not npcs that are beholden to the witch queen here.

To see if this is a tenable character, let's flesh out the nature of the group relationships.

We'll say the thief has a treasure map with details of a tomb. The spellsword has a map of the area, showing elven settlements, and Damkina. You have an idea of where the tomb is on that map. i'll produce these for you and put them up over the weekend.

How does everyone else fit together into the group? Why is your character on this expedition, and why do the other people want you along? Everyone, please.

[The-Dungeon-Shaker]

Minos Torak was fleeing the City-State of the Invincible Overlord after getting in trouble with the authority there. He came on board of the first ship he could find, only wanting to sail far away.

Joining the thief on his quest for a treasure-filled tomb is a tempting option, adventure calling and everything...As for the others wanting him along, the mere sight of this colossus holding a dreadful morningstar should be enough to explain why .

[Zhym]

I sent you a pm on that topic. I'm not familiar enough with the setting to know where an elven nightblade would be from. And I'm not sure I know enough of the background to say why he's teamed up with this bunch, assuming he's already done so. Where are we starting? Already grouped up and on the way to somewhere?

Depending on setting and circumstances, Fëanus could be the agent of one of the elven houses that heard of the map and sent him to find out more about it and report back. Or, if the location of the map is close enough to elven lands, he was sent to escort the other adventurers. Or he's a freelance nightblade who heard of the map and thought it worth investigating. If he's a freelancer, he kills only when hired and only for clients he chooses (think of him as an elven assassin version of a "Companion" in Firefly, with a bit of the Pratchett version of assassins mixed in). He can assure the other characters that none of them are his current client (the "client," as in Pratchett, is the soon-to-be assassinee), because if any of them were they'd already be dead.

[sulldawga]

Not to be a completely greedy bastard (I am a thief, after all) but the treasure map is in lieu of my character getting a magic item. It would be nice to not have to completely share the treasure with everyone else.

That being said, I fully appreciate the fact that my thief is unlikely to be able to retrieve the treasure by himself.

Maybe we could say, since the map is his, Kord gets first choice of any items we find within? Thirdkingdom should get some consideration for his treasure map getting nerfed as well...

As far as his motivation...

Kord has always been ambitious but opportunities to move up in the Thieves Guild were few and far between, not to mention fraught with danger. He contemplated going on his own a number of times but lacked the money or followers to successfully do so. He was always a guy who set the example with deeds, not words, but that made it hard to recruit like-minded followers.

When he "found" the treasure map and successfully kept its existence a secret from his masters, he figured it was his best chance to become self-employed. Make some cash, get far away from the Grandfather of his Guild, and start fresh. He got in touch with a couple Elves he knew who were of like mind and began to put a team together.

[Zhym]

Not to be a completely greedy bastard (I am a thief, after all) but the treasure map is in lieu of my character getting a magic item. It would be nice to not have to completely share the treasure with everyone else.

A fair point. Presumably we have a reason to be doing what we're doing beyond the fact that one of us has a treasure map?

[sulldawga]

As far as the henchmen question is concerned, perhaps a compromise is in order?

Every PC can have one henchman, no questions asked. If you want to hire more than one, then the group has to agree to it. Has to be a unanimous vote.

Here's a question for the Judge - Do henchmen get "credit", from an xp perspective, for a half share of treasure that's brought back to civilization, even if their physical share handed to them is less than that?

Here's an example: let's say a share of treasure is 50 gold. Would a henchman get 25 xp, even if his share that he got to keep was only 7.5 gold?

It's my understanding that if we only give 7.5 gold, then the henchman only earns 7.5 xp. I think henchmen should earn a half share so that they maximize their xp earning.

I am strongly in favor of henchmen being paid from Company funds, not by their individual employer. Henchmen benefit the entire party, they should be paid by the entire party. If anyone wants to hire a henchman who doesn't benefit the entire party, that's when we vote against it and problem solved.

[sulldawga]

Rodriguez,

The character sheets are with the dice roller.

[sulldawga]

drpete:

Can I get some Attributes for Elrohir, my Elven Ranger? I want to choose his proficiencies but obviously his INT will affect that.

Can we assume that he'll get max HP at 1st level or not?

Thanks.

[Zhym]

As far as the henchmen question is concerned, perhaps a compromise is in order?

Every PC can have one henchman, no questions asked. If you want to hire more than one, then the group has to agree to it. Has to be a unanimous vote.

Seems fair enough to me, but that suggestion does come from the player with one henchman.

I am strongly in favor of henchmen being paid from Company funds, not by their individual employer. Henchmen benefit the entire party, they should be paid by the entire party. If anyone wants to hire a henchman who doesn't benefit the entire party, that's when we vote against it and problem solved.

My character's magic items benefit the entire party because they make him more effective. You character's treasure map benefits the entire party. There are lots of things that benefit the entire party that we don't make the entire party pay for.

If a henchman was hired by you and takes orders from you, he should be paid by you, not "company funds." Fëanus paid for his horse and will pay for the horse's feed and stable fees. The horse benefits the whole party (because it keeps Fëanus from dragging behind, and might have room to carry party items), but it won't be maintained out of "company funds." It's Fëanus's horse; Fëanus pays its upkeep. Henchmen should work the same way.

If an NPC wants to join the party, they get a share of treasure and XP. But if one character has hired an NPC to come along, the henchman is that character's "pony" to pay the upkeep on.

[sulldawga]

I don't think I want to be in this game. If we're having these arguments now and can't compromise, it's only going to go downhill as the game progresses.

Sorry drpete, but better for me to step out now before you start so you can find a replacement.

[Zhym]

It's not that bad. Debate is simply the process by which we reach compromise.

Here's my counter proposal: if we want to have some group henchmen for the entire party, we decide, as a group, how many henchmen to hire and what their classes should be. The DM/GM/Judge will play the henchmen (is that already the case?), who will take orders from anyone in the party. If orders conflict, the henchman would use his or her best judgment. Which would probably happen anyway. Or we could designate one person to be in charge of each particular henchman. These henchmen for the group would get 1/2 xp shares as part of the base split and would be paid a share of gp out of the group chest, that share to be agreed upon by the group.

Players could also choose for their characters to have their own personal henchmen, who are chosen, hired, paid for, managed, and directed by that player's character. The personal henchman's XP and GP split would come from the character who hired him. The other players' characters wouldn't get to tell that henchman what to do and wouldn't have to share their XP or GP with the other character's henchman.

I think a couple of group henchmen would be useful, and I would gladly pay a share toward their upkeep. But I would suggest that we decide as a group who we need and what level they should be and pool our money for the funds to hire them. Then anyone else can hire personal henchmen if they're willing to part with the XP and GP drains for those henchmen.

Does that seem fair?

[The-Dungeon-Shaker]

I understand your concerns here. Now, my instinct tells me we should just stick to rules, which are here for a reason, but your options are perfectly viable too. At this point, I'm waiting for a definitive ruling from the GM before I make my choices.

I hope you'll stick with us, Sulldawga. Just wait a little longer, we can sort this all out together.

[drpete]

I appreciate the dilemma this set up question poses. There are definitely some very different playstyles in effect here. For purposes of a pbp, I think it would be very hard to have everybody just playing their own seperate timelines/games.

I took the treasure rolls as they lay. I am going to tweak the treasure maps to be worth more than what was rolled, and give possible starting hooks. The rolls are very swingy, as you can see.

I'm not going to modify the henchman rules. By default, they get a base salary, and a 15% share of treasure. XP is divided among the survivors who get back to town, and they each get a half share, so two of them is like having an extra party member. 4 of them is like having 2 more party members, etc.

I'm open to however you want to handle this, but if possible, I'd like to see it resolved by coming to a mutual decision, rather than having lots of people quit.

I'll get some stuff about elves up Soon, I hope.

[Zhym]

That leaves the question: 15% of whose treasure? XP allocation is specified "by the book," but all it says about payment is:

Henchmen are typically hired for a share of treasure (at least 15% of the employer’s income) and monthly fee for food, lodging and expenses (based on level, see below). Mercenaries and specialists are typically hired for a flat monthly fee, which varies depending on the type of specialist or mercenary.

My reading of this is that whoever hires the henchman is the "employer." If a PC hires a henchman, the PC is the "employer"; the henchman gets 15% of the PC's treasure share and the PC is responsible for negotiating payment and paying lodging and expenses. If the group pools its resources to hire a henchman, the group is the "employer"; the henchman gets a share of group treasure (not necessarily 15%, because that might be more or less than a normal share depending on the group size) and the group collectively pays lodging and expenses.

Drpete, is this your interpretation of how it would work "by the book" as well?

[drpete]

This got hashed out on the autarch boards a while ago. The intention of the rules is that everyone's slice of treasure and xp is smaller if there are henchmen, not just the employer. A character can have (with the right charisma) 7 henchmen, which works out to 105% of a character's share of treasure, and the intention was that 2 pcs and 2 henchmen means 2.3 shares for money, 3 shares for xp. 6 pcs and say 8 henchmen means 7.2 shares of treasure, 10 shares of xp. So each pc gets 1/10th the xp, instead of 1/6th the xp if there were no henchmen.

All henchmen effectively become junior members of the team, so they end up impacting the whole team.

[Zhym]

It seems broken to me that one player can force others to pay upkeep on "his" employees. The 7=105% business seems it's just a broken part of ACKS. If you have the charisma to hire 7 henchmen, you have the charisma to convince them to work for a lower share of the treasure. And a .15 share is a very different thing from 15% of the employer's income (hint: if I were the employee, I'd want the latter).

I'm also wondering how that would work after a game has started. You have a party composed of Alice, Bob, Carla, and Don. They've been adventuring a while with no henchmen. Alice, without consulting with the others, decides she wants to go hire four henchmen, which she has the charisma to do. So she posts help wanted ads, scouts out the local tavern, etc., seeking people to go adventuring with her. As compensation, she promises a payment of 100 GP per month and a .15 share of all treasure. If she is able to hire all four henchmen, Bob, Carla, and Don just became obliged to spend 100 GP per month (400/4 per person) and give up 15% of their income (each used to get 25% of treasure; with the new henchmen's shares, each gets 21.74%) without doing anything other than not keeping Alice under constant surveillance.

If that's the way it is, that's the way it is. But it convinces me even more that we should have at most two henchmen for the entire party.

[Rodriguez]

Bob, Carla, and Don just became obliged to spend 100 GP per month (400/4 per person) and give up 15% of their income (each used to get 25% of treasure; with the new henchmen's shares, each gets 21.74%) without doing anything other than not keeping Alice under constant surveillance.

If that's the way it is, that's the way it is. But it convinces me even more that we should have at most two henchmen for the entire party.

The 21.74% is correct but the emloyer has to pay the monthly fees out of his own pocket: Alice has to pay the 400 gp.