The more I think about this, the more I love it. Say hello to Fëanus Feorod, Elven Attorney at Law. He has been retained to represent the interests of a client whose identity he is not at liberty to disclose due to attorney-client privilege.Zhym wrote:Actually, an elven assassin who is also a lawyer seems oddly appropriate.
No, thats why one has to ensure thats in the A-Ps best interest to stay loyal. Be it with gifts, promises or other favors...I mean, would you trust an anti-paladin not to turn on you the moment he has an advantage?
Thats what you get for signing up for a job as an investment banker...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?
I didnt even mention the 6 other dark plated riders on armored horses that follow the witch lady and her ball-and-chain wielding consort...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?
Then they can stay at home from the start of the adventure.Rodriguez wrote:I can ensure you though that the thieves wont join me on the adventure. They are strictly stay-at-home thieves and their business has no effect on you.
No, I disagree.Zhym wrote:Then they can stay at home from the start of the adventure.
I think a 1 henchman per PC rule makes sense starting out.
If we would play a goody goody group in a high fantasy campaign I could see your point., but coming from a murder-as-lifestyle Elf attorney... I dont know.As an attorney, Fëanus would certainly advise against entering into even a short-term business arrangement with someone who has so many followers of such type, especially when their employers claim both that "their business has no effect" on anyone else but still insists that the followers must come along.
Clearly.Rodriguez wrote:No, I disagree.
You'd be amazed how many adventuring parties survive without bringing along as "henchmen" enough people to form a second adventuring party.Rodriguez wrote:I still wonder how we should survive the things to come with so little henchmen and merc support
It's especially true when the main party is mostly of Neutral alignment. Do you think characters are less likely to turn on characters who are neutral or chaotic? I think they'd be more likely to turn.Rodriguez wrote:If we would play a goody goody group in a high fantasy campaign I could see your point., but coming from a murder-as-lifestyle Elf attorney... I dont know.
No. We need to get this henchman issue sorted out before we go anywhere.Rodriguez wrote:Lets just work out a group travel reason. I post some more info on my background soon.
+1Zhym wrote:Treasure distribution should absolutely work on a per-player character basis: equal shares to PCs, who can decide how to distribute their shares as they choose.
I'd strongly argue that XP allocation should work the same way: split XP evenly among PCs, then split each PC share of XP among the PC and his or her henchmen. That puts the XP cost of hiring henchmen with the person making the decision to hire them. If you want lots of henchmen, that's fine, but it'll cost you character level advancement. If you don't want lots of henchman, you won't see an XP drain because someone else likes henchmen.
As henchmen, not hirelings, I assume they would be loyal to their master and not be very concerned about other pcs, and not risking their skins to go out of their way for others. Henchmen are much more of a benefit to their pc than to others.Rodriguez wrote: The reasoning for treating henchmen equally is that they all share the same risk, no matter who hired them. Everybody profits from an additional sword or bow in the dungeon, it increases the survival chance of the whole group.
Yes, the penalty will mostly be XP and I think the party will end up weaker then it should. This will either be noticable in play or not... We will see.drpete wrote:This argument seems to work for theoretical henchmen nobody likes, but consider in the case of the party, the cleric henchman and the elven ranger. Should there really be a disincentive for someone to hire and equip these guys? I suspect that the cleric will be of noticeable benefit to the party, and the ranger as well. They fill gaps in party composition. Should the characters who paid to arrange these valuable services be penalized in gold share (and I guess you're suggesting xp) for providing the group with healing and outdoor expertise? This suggested rule imposes the group's dislike of henchmen into a systemic disincentive for anyone to step up to fill the group's weaknesses.
That would work for me just fine.If the group says it doesn't want to take some guys on its pursuit of this or whatever goal, those guys can't come. You say one assistant on the adventure per pc can be "in the group" that's fine. I'm inclined to let a player have more henchmen that essentially sit in town and *dont* travel with you and suck up xp and gold from those group activities, though, if they want. Henchmen could be put to work on merchantile endeavors, carousing, hunting for leads, etc... activities that are not part of the group "adventure". Does that sound less disruptive of group cohesion?
Under my proposed system, there's only a disincentive if the party has decided it doesn't want the henchmen. If the party as a whole thinks it would benefit from having cleric and ranger henchmen, then it would agree to hire them and pay for them collectively. If for some reason the party doesn't think these henchmen would be useful (and, to be clear, I do think they are useful, and would contribute to their support), but a character wants to hire them anyway, then the cost of those henchmen should be on the player who decides to hire them despite the group not wanting them. In that situation, the henchman might only support his or her employer. So only the individual gets healed, for example.drpete wrote:This argument seems to work for theoretical henchmen nobody likes, but consider in the case of the party, the cleric henchman and the elven ranger. Should there really be a disincentive for someone to hire and equip these guys? I suspect that the cleric will be of noticeable benefit to the party, and the ranger as well. They fill gaps in party composition. Should the characters who paid to arrange these valuable services be penalized in gold share (and I guess you're suggesting xp) for providing the group with healing and outdoor expertise? This suggested rule imposes the group's dislike of henchmen into a systemic disincentive for anyone to step up to fill the group's weaknesses.
I agree with this.Zhym wrote:Under my proposed system, there's only a disincentive if the party has decided it doesn't want the henchmen. If the party as a whole thinks it would benefit from having cleric and ranger henchmen, then it would agree to hire them and pay for them collectively. If for some reason the party doesn't think these henchmen would be useful (and, to be clear, I do think they are useful, and would contribute to their support), but a character wants to hire them anyway, then the cost of those henchmen should be on the player who decides to hire them despite the group not wanting them. In that situation, the henchman might only support his or her employer. So only the individual gets healed, for example.drpete wrote:This argument seems to work for theoretical henchmen nobody likes, but consider in the case of the party, the cleric henchman and the elven ranger. Should there really be a disincentive for someone to hire and equip these guys? I suspect that the cleric will be of noticeable benefit to the party, and the ranger as well. They fill gaps in party composition. Should the characters who paid to arrange these valuable services be penalized in gold share (and I guess you're suggesting xp) for providing the group with healing and outdoor expertise? This suggested rule imposes the group's dislike of henchmen into a systemic disincentive for anyone to step up to fill the group's weaknesses.
The key to what I'm talking about here is that it's not up to any one individual to fill the group's weaknesses. The group can do that. The tension occurs when one character decides to fill a "need" the group has decided it doesn't have.
And "group" can be a subset of the whole group. If one character doesn't want any henchmen but the other four do, the four can pool resources to hire what henchmen they want.
As for others getting the benefit of henchmen they didn't hire, I think the Dungeon Shaker has it right. There are lots of ways henchmen can favor their employers. Clerics can prefer healing their bosses (and wouldn't you make sure your source of livelihood stays alive above all others?). In combat, henchmen can defend their employers and target creatures attacking their employers. Magic-user spells can be cast to benefit the caster's employer. And so forth.
What I'm proposing is not that radical, I think. Here's an example of how my system would work. Let's use Alice, Bob, Carla, and Don again. None of them are clerics. Alice could run off on her own and hire a cleric, but if she did she'd have to pay all the costs (GP and XP) associated with the cleric herself. But Alice could also say to the others, "We don't have a healer and we need one. I'll go hire one for us if you'll all agree to share the cost." The group, knowing the value of a healer, readily agrees. Maybe Don thinks its unnecessary and dissents. Then Alice, Bob, and Carla hire the healer and Don had better hope he doesn't get hurt.
---------
That all assumes that we're talking about my group vs. personal henchmen system. But even in what I interpret as the "by the book system as it should be" (off-the-top share of XP, but GP support costs paid by the hiring player), I don't think the disincentive to hire personal henchmen that have side group benefits is that strong. Henchmen are really useful. Most of the time, they're well worth the cost, even if that cost is borne by an individual player.
