Quote from: Shasarak;1117734I dont get it.  All NPCs have class and levels.

Not before 3e, and not after it either (except in 3e derivatives like Pathfinder).

In 5e, the basic mercenary is a Guard from the NPC appendix of the Monster Manual. The Guard has neither a character class nor a character leve!.

Quote from: Shasarak;1117734I dont get it.  All NPCs have class and levels.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117737Not before 3e, and not after it either (except in 3e derivatives like Pathfinder).

In 5e, the basic mercenary is a Guard from the NPC appendix of the Monster Manual. The Guard has neither a character class nor a character leve!.

Yes before 3e, right from the very beginning  ..and stats, and treasure, sometimes magic items, and definitely gear as well. The players only get the leftovers if they attack the npcs, not everything they were carrying because they, ...well, ...use it.

For every 30 bandits there will be one 4th-level Fighting-Man; for every 50 bandits there will be in addition one 5th- or 6th-level fighter (die 1–3 = 5th level, die 4–6 = 6th level); for every 100 bandits there will be in addition one 8th- or 9th-level fighter (die 1–3 = 8th, die 4–6 = 9th). If there are over 200 bandits there will be 50% chance for a Magic-User (die 1–4 = 10th level, die 5–6 = 11th level) and a 25% chance for a Cleric of the 8th level. If
there are exactly 300 bandits there will absolutely be a Magic-User, and the chance for a Cleric goes up to 50%. There is also a chance that there will be magical accouterments with the super-normal types:

Magic Items that NPC's may possess, from the Original D&D, Volume 2, Monsters & Treasure...

Bandits & Dervish Encounters---
Type
5% chance for Fighting-Men for each level, roll for . . . Armor Shield Sword
5% chance for Magic-Users for each level, roll for . . . Wand/Staff Ring Misc. Magic
5% chance for Clerics for each level, roll for . . . Misc. Weapon* Armor Shield

There is a 15% chance they are in or near their lair when encountered, and they'll collectively have a Type A Treasure hoard scattered and/or concealed around their bandit camp as well.

The bandits will have the following gear;
Composition of Force: Light Foot (Leather Armor & Shield) = 40%;
Short Bow (Leather Armor) or Light Crossbow (same) = 25%;
Light Horse (Leather Armor & Shield) = 25%;
Medium Horse (Chain Mail & Shield, no horse barding) = 20%.
All super-normal individuals  with the force (that's 4th level & above), will be riding Heavy, barded horses.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1117751Yes before 3e, right from the very beginning  ..and stats, and treasure, sometimes magic items, and definitely gear as well. The players only get the leftovers if they attack the npcs, not everything they were carrying because they, ...well, ...use it.

For every 30 bandits there will be one 4th-level Fighting-Man; for every 50 bandits there will be in addition one 5th- or 6th-level fighter (die 1–3 = 5th level, die 4–6 = 6th level); for every 100 bandits there will be in addition one 8th- or 9th-level fighter (die 1–3 = 8th, die 4–6 = 9th). If there are over 200 bandits there will be 50% chance for a Magic-User (die 1–4 = 10th level, die 5–6 = 11th level) and a 25% chance for a Cleric of the 8th level. If
there are exactly 300 bandits there will absolutely be a Magic-User, and the chance for a Cleric goes up to 50%. There is also a chance that there will be magical accouterments with the super-normal types:

Magic Items that NPC's may possess, from the Original D&D, Volume 2, Monsters & Treasure...

Bandits & Dervish Encounters---
Type
5% chance for Fighting-Men for each level, roll for . . . Armor Shield Sword
5% chance for Magic-Users for each level, roll for . . . Wand/Staff Ring Misc. Magic
5% chance for Clerics for each level, roll for . . . Misc. Weapon* Armor Shield

There is a 15% chance they are in or near their lair when encountered, and they'll collectively have a Type A Treasure hoard scattered and/or concealed around their bandit camp as well.

The bandits will have the following gear;
Composition of Force: Light Foot (Leather Armor & Shield) = 40%;
Short Bow (Leather Armor) or Light Crossbow (same) = 25%;
Light Horse (Leather Armor & Shield) = 25%;
Medium Horse (Chain Mail & Shield, no horse barding) = 20%.
All super-normal individuals  with the force (that's 4th level & above), will be riding Heavy, barded horses.

Are suggesting PCs will recruit bands of 30+ bandits to take on adventures? If not, that's outside the scope of the thread. If so, do the rules for using them as hirelings work the same way as the encounter rules you're citing? I recall the mercenary charts from the DMG, and they were less complex than that.

In 5e, we have Bandit and Bandit Captain. Neither have levels in character classes. Both could potentially be recruited as hirelings under the right circumstances (and the stats for these are supposed to represent pirate crews too).

In either case, I'm not about to waste time individually rolling ability scores, assigning proficiencies, and equipping a dozen mercenaries (or bandits/pirates). I'm perfectly fine with them all using a standard stat block and uniform gear.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117753Are suggesting PCs will recruit bands of 30+ bandits to take on adventures? If not, that's outside the scope of the thread. If so, do the rules for using them as hirelings work the same way as the encounter rules you're citing? I recall the mercenary charts from the DMG, and they were less complex than that.

In 5e, we have Bandit and Bandit Captain. Neither have levels in character classes. Both could potentially be recruited as hirelings under the right circumstances (and the stats for these are supposed to represent pirate crews too).

In either case, I'm not about to waste time individually rolling ability scores, assigning proficiencies, and equipping a dozen mercenaries (or bandits/pirates). I'm perfectly fine with them all using a standard stat block and uniform gear.

L'équipement du soldat britannique au cours de l'histoire

Quote from: GameDaddy;1117754

L'équipement du soldat britannique au cours de l'histoire

I don't read French, but thanks for the pictures. Was there a point to them?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117737Not before 3e, and not after it either (except in 3e derivatives like Pathfinder).

In 5e, the basic mercenary is a Guard from the NPC appendix of the Monster Manual. The Guard has neither a character class nor a character leve!.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1117751Yes before 3e, right from the very beginning  ..and stats, and treasure, sometimes magic items, and definitely gear as well. The players only get the leftovers if they attack the npcs, not everything they were carrying because they, ...well, ...use it.

No, Yes, and Maybee actually.

Monster type hirelings were all over the place. Either they were their own thing and had no class or real level other than HD. Or only the leaders had class and levels. Also in older iterations when a monster became a hireling or PC it started gaining the equivalents of levels sometimes depending on the rules. If any.

In BX retainers had levels and classes. They were a step above hirelings who were the equivalent of normal peasants or slightly better if mercs or soldiers. But did not go into dungeons.
In AD&D Merc captains and lieutenant hirelings could have levels and classes. Henchmen allways had levels and classes. It was advised to start them at level 1.
2e has much the same system as AD&D. Henchmen have levels and classes. Hirelings apparently do not same as in AD&D.
3e actually does have a section on cohorts and hirelings. These have classes and levels. There were also hireable workers
5e has a few different methods now and the Essentials box set just introduced companions who have their own sort of class and levels.

My players (whether they be playing D&D, Star Wars or some homebrew Genesys setting) don't generally bring anyone with them, which I always thought was a little odd. Especially in D&D. While the system may be barebones, the option for hirelings is there, and if you're going to be getting massive loot hauls from dungeons (and let's all admit it, every player likes a massive loot haul once in a while), someone needs to pack it, carry it, and protect it while the PCs are in the next dungeon on their tour de murderhobo.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117698That's very metagamey; is there any good in-world reason for not taking available help with you? I can see not being able to afford the help, or the need to sometimes travel light without attracting attention, but the idea of "if we accept help, we won't become more personally powerful as quickly" doesn't sit well with me. In any event, NPCs like commoners (porters, etc.) and guards (mercenaries to guard camp) don't sip from the XP gained.

Since most XP was gold, it's the same as splitting gold; but we weren't as concerned with the gold as with the XP. If you like, you can conclude that it's the glory; you advance by doing impressive heroic feats (and characters can understand that) and killing something in a crowd of a hundred is less impressive than with a small party. And characters could observe that those who used many hirelings did not develop their own skills as much (certainly casters can see objectively that they've advanced by virtue of being able to use more and better spells, even if the fighters would only have a rough idea).

Personally, I've never thought anyone would take the same risk of death as us (or greater, since they were clearly cannon fodder) for much less reward, so hirelings to do the fighting doesn't make sense to me anyway (if they were any good, they'd be their own party). Many DMs dropped the idea of hirelings until characters were so high level that low level hirelings would die too quickly and make no difference in an adventure; they only mattered for baronies and such.

But yes, it probably was originally metagame even if it can be rationalized; it was an established practice when I joined that first campaign, so I don't know what thinking prompted it. Far from the worst metagame sins in that campaign.

Quote from: rawma;1117761Personally, I've never thought anyone would take the same risk of death as us (or greater, since they were clearly cannon fodder) for much less reward, so hirelings to do the fighting doesn't make sense to me anyway (if they were any good, they'd be their own party). Many DMs dropped the idea of hirelings until characters were so high level that low level hirelings would die too quickly and make no difference in an adventure; they only mattered for baronies and such.

5e uses "bounded accuracy" so the Guard's +3 attack doing 1d6+1 damage can actually contribute to the party's offense and 11 hit points with AC 16 gives reasonable staying power against hordes of small baddies (which, much like the Guard, can still be a challenge to higher-level characters when in groups). If the PCs are trying, it can be really easy to keep such guys alive with a little magic (5e is very forgiving compared to some versions). Perhaps most useful, these guys can actually help to keep the monsters off of the "squishy" PCs and prevent flanking (if that rule is in effect) while also ensuring that Rogues have a friend to help them Sneak Attack. All of this at the low cost of 2gp/day each.

Quote from: rawma;1117697From The Hobbit, I learned that it's a good idea to bring a Wizard, but also pack your own pocket-handkerchiefs since you can't count on the Wizard remembering important things like that.

Do you consider someone skilled in magic to be critical to a party's survival/progress?
I ask because I'm looking at the Scarlet Heroes rules which should make one and two player parties viable.
Does a single Hero have to be a "Jack of All Trades"?

Is there a "requirement" to recruit a henchman?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117674This is a D&D question...When going on extended adventures out in the wilderness, do your PCs bring along hirelings?

Absolutely yes.

Quote from: rawma;1117697We almost never brought NPCs along if we had to split XP with them...

This is probably edition-dependent, but it isn't a big problem for the editions I favor (i.e., original D&D or 1e AD&D). In my games, the vast majority of XP comes from treasure, and the treasure split is determined by the players (not the DM). Monster XP always gets split equally among the participants, but it's usually only around 20% or so of the total XP.

Quote from: HappyDaze;11177665e uses "bounded accuracy" so the Guard's +3 attack doing 1d6+1 damage can actually contribute to the party's offense and 11 hit points with AC 16 gives reasonable staying power against hordes of small baddies (which, much like the Guard, can still be a challenge to higher-level characters when in groups). If the PCs are trying, it can be really easy to keep such guys alive with a little magic (5e is very forgiving compared to some versions). Perhaps most useful, these guys can actually help to keep the monsters off of the "squishy" PCs and prevent flanking (if that rule is in effect) while also ensuring that Rogues have a friend to help them Sneak Attack. All of this at the low cost of 2gp/day each.

One of my 5E groups rescued an NPC elf scout.  At the time, he had no weapons or armor, having lost all that when captured.  They loaned him a spare dagger and a crossbow, thinking he wouldn't add much anyway.  And for several sessions, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.  Then suddenly last session he couldn't miss, was rolling almost max damage, and even tossed in 2 criticals with the crossbow.  By himself, took down one of two upgraded ogres that was walloping the 6th level cleric while the rest of the party dealt with a small horde.  In a party of 9 player characters.

Quote from: HappyDaze;11177665e uses "bounded accuracy" so the Guard's +3 attack doing 1d6+1 damage can actually contribute to the party's offense and 11 hit points with AC 16 gives reasonable staying power against hordes of small baddies (which, much like the Guard, can still be a challenge to higher-level characters when in groups). If the PCs are trying, it can be really easy to keep such guys alive with a little magic (5e is very forgiving compared to some versions). Perhaps most useful, these guys can actually help to keep the monsters off of the "squishy" PCs and prevent flanking (if that rule is in effect) while also ensuring that Rogues have a friend to help them Sneak Attack. All of this at the low cost of 2gp/day each.

The NPCs in 5e are stronger than the ones in OD&D, but the rules for 5e tend not to encourage having hirelings, and since XP is not gold dependent, players don't tend to have as much gold. It's even cheaper to conjure animals. From an economic point of view, if the price is lower than the utility then you're going to get outbid (lots of less risky ways to earn a living for guards, if the game world is worth playing in). From a game balance standpoint, excessive hireling ruin things; there was a Lord of the Rings game way back when where I was able to take 5000 Riders of Rohan through Cirith Ungol, making it pretty easy to force your way to Mount Doom. Lots of reasons why that wouldn't work (horses going up staircases, the need for stealth) but "lots of hirelings" is frequently one of the "Win" buttons.

Quote from: Greentongue;1117773Do you consider someone skilled in magic to be critical to a party's survival/progress?
I ask because I'm looking at the Scarlet Heroes rules which should make one and two player parties viable.
Does a single Hero have to be a "Jack of All Trades"?

Is there a "requirement" to recruit a henchman?

In the case of The Hobbit, without Gandalf, every dwarf and Bilbo would have been killed by trolls and then goblins, and probably starved to death without finding Beorn; unclear if the giant eagles would have helped them. Maybe they'd leveled up enough (and gotten some magic items) by the time they reached Mirkwood to do without, though.

My experience was always that henchmen were plotting to betray you.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1117781This is probably edition-dependent, but it isn't a big problem for the editions I favor (i.e., original D&D or 1e AD&D). In my games, the vast majority of XP comes from treasure, and the treasure split is determined by the players (not the DM). Monster XP always gets split equally among the participants, but it's usually only around 20% or so of the total XP.

I was talking about OD&D. Why would the hirelings take a greater risk of death (they were the cannon fodder) and not get a share of the treasure? We rejected even explicit rules in OD&D that made no sense to us (or that hurt the game as a game). But some of it is rule interpretation; we computed XP from the treasure captured, and then divided it evenly, no matter how much gold a particular character got.

Quote from: rawma;1117791I was talking about OD&D. Why would the hirelings take a greater risk of death (they were the cannon fodder) and not get a share of the treasure? We rejected even explicit rules in OD&D that made no sense to us (or that hurt the game as a game). But some of it is rule interpretation; we computed XP from the treasure captured, and then divided it evenly, no matter how much gold a particular character got.

Yeah, I don't divide treasure XP evenly. I let the players decide how treasure is split and grant the treasure XP based on how they choose to split it. I do divide monster XP evenly, though.

Hireling monetary rewards can be tricky, and it probably depends on exactly how the hirelings are used. For example, if the hirelings in question are "adventuring" as if they're full party/equal members, then yes, I think their loyalty would suffer if they don't get substantial shares of the loot. (To me, that's more like how henchmen often operate.) But if they're more like "camp guards" or "garrison duty," then they might be content with more standard men-at-arms pay, possible at the "dangerous duty" scale. Also, I look at examples from history, like how shares were allocated on age of sail ships (i.e., not equally, and there was no expectation of equality there). For some situations, that can be a useful guide that can parallel the model of an adventuring party leading a group that includes men-at-arms hirelings. Also, I think our modern views on equality and what might be expected color our perspective. In a more feudal-based or influenced society, many hirelings would probably see the PC's kind of like leaders/lords in the "gold and gift giver" roles. They'd expect to be rewarded, of course, but probably wouldn't expect pure equality. But successful lords and gold-givers would inspire some loyalty through their success and their generosity. In short, as long as the PCs are giving their hirelings wealth and prestige that those hirelings wouldn't have, otherwise, I can see hirelings being content with what a modern person might not consider a "fair share."

Some of this also depends on how you model your game and campaigns. I run D&D with the idea that the PCs are adventurers seeking fortune and glory. Thus fortune and glory are major goals, which works very well with treasure-based XP, et cetera. And it works well with the idea that the PCs take on the roles of leaders/lords/gift-givers as the campaign develops. And that works well with followers being, well...followers. Individuals that hitch on to a rising star in hopes of bettering their own situation, but don't expect to be equals or "stars," themselves.

And, obviously, if hirelings and followers are ill-used, then they would have little or no loyalty to the PCs. If they're callously employed as disposable cannon fodder, then they'd almost certainly abandon or turn on the PCs. But if they're rewarded in line with what they see as their "place" and their expectations, then they're likely to be content and loyal. In my experience, most players tend to be pretty generous with their followers. They usually want to be seen as good leaders and gold-givers: lords to follow.