Quote from: SHARK;1117846Greetings!

Well, my groups generally bring along an assortment of mercenaries, a cook, several labourers, a few animal handlers, and several skilled scouts. Sometimes a Cartographer as well, and a Historian. And, depending on the expedition, a few translators.

The hirelings usually stay at the base camp, with only the most bold and skilled being willing to accompany the adventurers into the crazy dungeons.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Damn, I want in on a SHARK party, because a SHARK party adventures in style!

I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used hirelings. There was the occasional helper NPC to guide the party, but not cooks or skilled tradesmen or anything.

Hmm... something to try out.

How does (for example) a henchman cook affect play, practically/mechanically? Does the DM or someone roll to see if the cook produces food? If PCs' food supplies run low, does the cook pop more into existence?

Quote from: Shasarak;1117840I dont know how 5e fucked up NPCs.

They didnt. Some NPCs are the exact same as in OD&D, AD&D or BX. They are no different than monsters and others are no different than PCs.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1117868Damn, I want in on a SHARK party, because a SHARK party adventures in style!

I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used hirelings. There was the occasional helper NPC to guide the party, but not cooks or skilled tradesmen or anything.

Hmm... something to try out.

How does (for example) a henchman cook affect play, practically/mechanically? Does the DM or someone roll to see if the cook produces food? If PCs' food supplies run low, does the cook pop more into existence?

Greetings!

*Laughing* Yes, my friend! Adventuring in style! Indeed, I apply morale penalties for poor and/or shitty food. In addition, for having consistently good food, the party gains frequent small bonuses, and avoids penalties. In addition, at certain times, they can gain Advantage as a morale booster lasting all day.

Imagine traveling through the harsh wilderness for two or three weeks, eating MRE's. Then, being woken up one morning and told by Gunny that fresh eggs and bacon is cooking on the grill, men!

The shift in morale is tangible, like watching electricity bounce from man to man, instantly lifting their spirits, and making them bold for a new day of challenges.

In a similar fashion, having a skilled, professional cook accompany you and your band on your journey for weeks or months into the unknown is made a bit warmer, safer, and happier. The cook can take any meat you catch and kill, whether lamb, deer, bear, goat, cattle, or some unusual beast, and inside of an hour or two make a good, tasty meal that you and your group of your own, couldn't dream of. There's always something good the cook can do with various fish, as well as roots, berries, and vegetables found along the way. The cook can also be knowledgeable and skilled in transforming something that would likely make you sick or even kill you--into something safe, edible, and tasty.

Plus, Cooks are great sources of odd wisdom, and crazy stories! Cooks often become a beloved and favourite NPC, whether they are men or women.

As an aside in observing human nature and culture, I suppose, I was always amazed by how powerful the informal authority of cooks were in the Marines. Whether in the barrack's area Chow Hall, or in a makeshift mess area out in the field, the Cooks take command. How you get your food, where you go to eat, what to do with your empty plate, and on and on. Everyone is eager to please, and prompt in doing what the Cook's tell them. Well I remember how having a good, well-cooked breakfast in the morning was such a tremendous blessing, after so much harsh training and struggle. It's funny seeing us goofy Marines, beaming with smiles in the morning, just because we were surrounded by mountains of delicious food. Fresh omelets, cooked from scratch right in front of you. Same with pancakes, waffles, eggs, bacon, sausage and ham. Trays full of fresh hot biscuits and cinnamon rolls, right from the oven, brought out to you. Tables set with baskets overflowing with fresh bananas, apples, and oranges. It was always very special.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: rawma;1117697We almost never brought NPCs along if we had to split XP with them; we did tend to bring pack animals or a wagon to justify having an appropriate amount of supplies.

I never had a character decision motivated by XP. I remember a group of PCs in a tavern talking to an old drunk who told us what XP were and how you got them. We didn't want any.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117674This is a D&D question, but not necessarily limited to 5e (although that is what I'm currently using):

When going on extended adventures out in the wilderness, do your PCs bring along hirelings?

I'm not talking about powerful combatant NPCs, but stuff like porters, linkboys, personal servants (valets), a cook, someone to care for horses, local guides, basic mercenaries (guards) to protect the camp, etc. that are mainly used to form, populate, and defend a base camp that the players set up.

To a limited extent and largely when we are going to spend part of the adventure underground or indoors. Horses need care and protection. The couple that fills that function also has one very good camp cook (Mr. Z) and one who is really good at other camp chores but a lousy cook (Mrs. Z) Unfortunately, they alternate the cooking duties.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117817Can you give an example of the roster of an expedition.

I'll see if I can find any notes from previous adventures. It kind of depends on what the PCs are doing and who the PCs are.

Off the top of my head, it's typically the PCs and any henchmen they have, mounts, wagons, one or two linkboys, and one or two squad-sized units of men-at-arms (usually spearmen and/or archers). Sometimes a teamster or two for wagons, if they're present.

I'm usually DM, but I played in a game not too long ago that was exploring a desert looking for some buried ruins. We had the PCs, men-at-arms, and camels and mules with some pack handlers. The biggest issue was carrying water. We were carrying barrels of water (and food, of course, but water was the critical thing). The DM for that game used some tweaked rules from the Outdoor Survival game for handling wilderness exploration and food/water consumption, and those seemed to work pretty well. We had some difficulty after we located the ruins, because the camp was attacked by hippogriffs after the camels. We drove them off, but they did kill a camel or two, which meant we lost the ability to carry some of our water supply.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117829Do most such expeditions travel on mounts/in vehicles overland, or is foot travel more common?

Depends on what you're doing, terrain, et cetera. If you have a lot of men, mounts or pack animals become pretty important. Mainly for carrying food, water, and misc. gear. If the terrain or circumstances make mounts and vehicles difficult or impossible, porters are the fallback.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1117843Your standard AD&D man-at-arms is level 0 and has no class. 1d6hp, I believe. They use the level 0 row of the Fighter attack and saving throw tables, but they're not Fighters.

In AD&D, mercenary men-at-arms are all treated as Fighters, but they can't/don't advance. They're basically "fighters" for the purposes of running combat. Regular men-at-arms are 0-level fighters with 4-7 hit points (basically 1-1 HD, but considered to be in the upper portion of that range). NCOs are veteran 1st level fighters (that don't advance). Lieutenants are 2nd or 3rd level fighters (that don't advance). Captains are 5th-8th level fighters (that don't advance).

In my experience, it's rare for PCs to hire enough men-at-arms to require captains unless they're planning on using the men-at-arms for actual warfare/battle. For exploration and adventuring, it's more common for the PCs to hire smaller units of men-at-arms with NCOs, maybe a lieutenant, and then have a PC fighter take the role of "captain" in overall command.

Other "normal men" NPCs are also considered "0-level fighters" (equivalent to 1-1 HD), with hit points and combat ability according to guidelines based on who they are and what they do:

Sedentary Females: 1-3 hit points, -3 combat ability
Sedentary Males: 1-4 hit points, -2 combat ability
Active Females: 1-4 hit points, -1 combat ability
Active Males: 2-5 hit points, normal 0-level combat ability
Laboring Females: 2-5 hit points, normal 0-level combat ability
Laboring Males: 2-7 hit points, normal 0-level combat ability

Quote from: Greentongue;1117859I assume that each of these people didn't need a multi-page background write-up?
Were they even given names and stat blocks?

Multi-page background? Oh, hell no. Even the PCs don't do that.

They only get names if it becomes important/desirable to name them. Same with specific stats. Usually that's not needed. The exception is actual henchmen (as opposed to hirelings). Henchmen always have names, stats, classes, et cetera. They're more like PCs (and often end up becoming actual PCs, at some point).

QuoteFrom what I gather, these days there would be so much "role playing" just within the "caravan" that there would be no time to actually explore a dungeon. Were there times when sessions were just about the "caravan" interactions?

Not really. Organizing the expedition can take some game time, but once that's done there's not really any need to "role play" all the details. There might be some limited role-play with certain NPCs (like lieutenants or NCOs, or for linkboys or henchmen that accompany the PCs a lot), but mostly the NPCs have defined jobs that aren't important to focus on or role-play out. If they're loyal, I assume they do their jobs without needing to "play it out."

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1117868I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used hirelings. There was the occasional helper NPC to guide the party, but not cooks or skilled tradesmen or anything.

How does (for example) a henchman cook affect play, practically/mechanically? Does the DM or someone roll to see if the cook produces food? If PCs' food supplies run low, does the cook pop more into existence?

In my games, we don't focus on day-to-day (boring) stuff like cooking or handling the mules or whatever unless it's important to the game situation for some reason. There's no "cooking roll" or anything like that. It's assumed. A PC or NPC that is cooking doesn't produce food out of nothing. You have to have some food to cook. If the group runs out of food they might need to spend time foraging or hunting (or using spells to create food).

FWIW, "henchman cook" seems a bit odd, to me. Henchmen are usually more like "sidekick NPCs" that are members of the adventuring party (attached to a specific PC). Like a squire or a protege. If Brienne of Tarth is a PC, Podrick is probably a henchman. Henchmen can cook, but it would be odd to have a henchman that is "just a cook." (An NPC who is "just a cook" is likely to be a hireling.) Henchmen can also act as a "backup PC" for players. If their main PC is killed or incapacitated, the player can actively play the henchman, instead.

If you want some rules guidelines for foraging, here are the rules we used in that game I mentioned in a previous post: A party may forage for food by sacrificing 1/3 of its move allowance. A maximum of three such attempts may be made each day. Each foraging attempt gives a 1 in 6 chance that adequate food can be found to satisfy the day's food requirement. This chance could be optionally adjusted based on the circumstances (e.g., abundance of the land, presence of an expert like a ranger or druid, et cetera). On the DM's hex map, there can also be certain hexes that are designated "food hexes," where the supply is particularly abundant and no roll is needed at all, just time.

More details can be found in the Planet Eris House Rules supplement by Jimm Johnson (he was the DM for that game). It's in the section "Wilderness Adventures Using Outdoor Survival." There are some other cool resources on his blog, as well.

The ACKS rules for foraging and hunting are the best I've seen for combining ease of use with reasonable results.

It's something along the lines of foraging gathering 1d4 man days of food with a successful check, and you can forage on the move; hunting gathers 2d4 man days of food on a successful check, but prevents travel.

All PCs can attempt both; hunting proficiency provides a hefty bonus.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1117908The ACKS rules for foraging and hunting are the best I've seen for combining ease of use with reasonable results.

It's something along the lines of foraging gathering 1d4 man days of food with a successful check, and you can forage on the move; hunting gathers 2d4 man days of food on a successful check, but prevents travel.

All PCs can attempt both; hunting proficiency provides a hefty bonus.

ACKS is one of the best for hireling/henchman/mercenary rules as a whole.

Shark's tribute to the value of (good) cooks to morale was entertaining and brought back fond memories. Whether that sort of thing appeals or you would rather just "get on with the game" is a matter of taste. I am in the "my characters are human or human-like and like their comforts" camp.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1117948Shark's tribute to the value of (good) cooks to morale was entertaining and brought back fond memories. Whether that sort of thing appeals or you would rather just "get on with the game" is a matter of taste. I am in the "my characters are human or human-like and like their comforts" camp.

Greetings!

Indeed, thanks my friend! I'm glad to make you smile. You know I'm right on, brother! Good cooks, good food was such a morale booster in the military. Stay inspired!

You know, I am not alone in believing of the importance of good food and good cooks. General George Patton, Commander of the U.S. Third Army in Europe, wrote and commented about the critical importance of good, hot food for the men. Without it, he felt, an army would be critically weakened, it's morale greatly lessened, and any successful campaign in grave doubt. Fresh hot food, and a staff of good cooks seemed to always be a very important priority for General Patton.

I've always agreed with Patton, also based on my own experiences in the field. *laughs*

One time, while we were just waking up after long days in the field, we could smell the fresh bacon and eggs the cooks were breaking out at the mess area in the field camp. Gunny comes tramping through, and says hold the phone, Marines! All you motherfuckers better be shaved and squared away before eating the good chow! *Laughs* So, we had to hurry up and shave with our ice cold canteen water thrown into our helmet, and shaved that way. Yeah, ice fucking cold. *bastard* We got it done quick though, and through on a clean blouse so we looked squared away good enough, for a proper breakfast. We were still in the field after all. *laughs* We didn't know it yet, but after we finished breakfast, Gunny marched through the groups of Marines, scattered about drinking coffee and smoking, and told us to get our gear, and mount up for a short march. The helicopters were on their way to bring us home!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1117957Good cooks, good food was such a morale booster in the military...General George Patton, Commander of the U.S. Third Army in Europe, wrote and commented about the critical importance of good, hot food for the men. Without it, he felt, an army would be critically weakened, it's morale greatly lessened, and any successful campaign in grave doubt. Fresh hot food, and a staff of good cooks seemed to always be a very important priority for General Patton.

I agree with all of that. However, unless food quality is important for the game situation, I assume that "if the party has food, they can cook it and it is suitable." Same kind of thing for making camp. I assume that the party sets up the best camp they can for their gear and circumstances. I don't worry about details like "do they put enough insulation between them and the ground" or "do they lay in an adequate supply of firewood before it gets dark" or "do they avoid low-lying areas where the cold air settles." Again, there might be game situations where I thought those details were more important, but usually it's not something I want to spend game time on. Usually, it's enough to know that they have the right resources (e.g., suitable food, water, camping gear, etc) and that someone has the right knowledge/background for the tasks at hand. In my games, that usually doesn't mean the right "skill" (I don't use general skills or non-weapon proficiencies in my D&D games). I assume that most people in the game world are familiar with how to build a fire or set up a camp or cook some food. And if there's a ranger or a druid or an wood elf or someone with an applicable background (including hirelings) then that's even better. (I do use "secondary skills" in D&D, which basically define a character's background prior to becoming an adventurer. Things like "forester" or "fisherman" or "farmer" or "sailor" or some sort of craft/trade. Between that background and the character's class/race, I have a pretty good idea of what knowledge and aptitudes that character would possess. Usually I don't require a roll for such things, unless it seems appropriate for the circumstances.)

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

With the right NPCs you'll end up getting more XP, since you can carry more loot and defeat more dangerous foes. Of course, it may not be an issue if the DM always makes you win however dangerous the foe, but then you may as well not have an adventuring party at all and just be a lone PC.

At 1st and sometimes 2nd levels we just grabbed whoever we could afford. After that we'd usually have a few thousand GP spare and could get organised. When playing in traditional D&D settings with dungeon etc, the party would have:

- 2 shares treasure each = PCs: fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief & any others
- 1 share treasure each = NPC henchmen if any
- 0 shares treasure = NPC hirelings: see below
- 2 shares treasure = party funds going to find new hirelings, pay for magical healing, grants to families of deceased NPCs, etc.
- in addition to their monthly pay, men-at-arms would get all silver pieces treasure, and hirelings all copper pieces treasure.

Hirelings were generally made up of,
- 12 men-at-arms with henchmen rotating acting as sergeant; in the absence of any henchmen we'd hire a sergeant. These were armed with 3 javelins, a spear, shortsword and large shield, with armour depending on available funds, but working to chain mail as soon as possible
- 1x cook, 1x steward
- 1x teamster, 1x stableboy
- 2 labourers
- some PCs chose to have a valet, who kept their equipment clean and working and made them their own meals.
- typically 4 carts drawn by horses carrying food, tents, axes and shovels, etc. The men-at-arms walked, the rest rode most of the time.

Altogether there'd be 4+ PCs, with a few henchmen, 12 men-at-arms and 6 non-fighting hirelings. Yes, that mean a train of 20+ people.

On arriving at a dungeon, the party would set up camp, with men-at-arms preparing basic defences of wooden spikes and doing clearing patrols of the immediate area, and labourers collecting firewood and clearing surrounding brush and cover so that if possible the base would have 100ft clear each side. They would then dig a latrine and set up tents etc.

On going into the dungeon we'd take 6 men-at-arms and leave the other 6 and the henchman-sergeant behind to defend the camp. We tried to go into the dungeon for the day and come back before nightfall, the next day taking the other 6 men-at-arms in with us.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1117900I never had a character decision motivated by XP. I remember a group of PCs in a tavern talking to an old drunk who told us what XP were and how you got them. We didn't want any.

PCs just did dangerous stuff with no idea why? At the very least I hope they were chasing after magic items, money and fame. Same thing, then.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1118048With the right NPCs you'll end up getting more XP, since you can carry more loot and defeat more dangerous foes. Of course, it may not be an issue if the DM always makes you win however dangerous the foe, but then you may as well not have an adventuring party at all and just be a lone PC.

If the DM expects you to have NPC cannon fodder, better have them, I guess. And the reverse is true.

An NPC with the party is a chance for betrayal but also a chance for a DM PC who solves all problems. Not really keen for either, but your mileage clearly varies.

Quote from: rawma;1118075PCs just did dangerous stuff with no idea why? At the very least I hope they were chasing after magic items, money and fame. Same thing, then.

I can't imagine why or how PCs would know about XP. They do dangerous stuff because they see a need for it. They don't expect magic items either because they are rare. After awhile, some individuals and groups do figure out that there is money in it. Fame is damn rare.
Not really the same thing. XP is an abstract concept and hard to imagine a person caring about. Hobgobins attacking a farm where you can see the smoke from the burning farmhouse from the road is concrete. Conflict between a usurper and the heir, who is also a much better person, is concrete.